0

Rule of law, which serves as the cornerstone of the administration of justice, includes the binding nature of judgements rendered by courts with competent jurisdiction: Uttarakhand High Court

Rule of law, which serves as the cornerstone of the administration of justice, includes the binding nature of judgements rendered by courts with competent jurisdiction is upheld by the Uttarakhand High Court in the case of Vidya Sagar Singh v. G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology through a division bench of Ramesh Ranganathan and R.C. Khulbe, JJ.

FACTS OF THE CASE

A writ petition requesting certiorari to overturn the decision ordering the recovery of money with interest was filed. In addition to this, the petitioner requested mandamus to order the respondent State University to reconsider the petitioner’s case and revoke the order.

The petitioner had previously invoked the court’s jurisdiction, contesting the legality of the respondent University’s decision requiring the petitioner to deposit Rs. 1,75,000

JUDGEMENT

The Divisional Bench noted that, despite the petitioner being a temporary employee of the Government of Rajasthan, it was an undisputed fact that he had executed a bond with the State of Rajasthan when he went on study vacation. The Division Bench dismissed the writ petition because it lacked merit. However, in 2019 the department’s responsible officer issued an order for the recovery of the bond’s amount plus interest, which was executed at the time the petitioner was given a study leave to earn a Ph.D. and was at issue in the current writ.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s claim that a new cause of action had arisen as a result of the Office Order of 2019 did not merit acceptance. Additionally, since the present writ petition was based on the same cause of action as the order from 2014, which sought to recoup Rs 1,75,000 from the petitioner, it is challenging to accept that the petitioner was once again entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court, effectively casting doubt on the very basis for the original claim. Further, it was claimed that a cursory review of the order issued by the Division Bench made it clear that the petitioner was not given permission to re-invoke the jurisdiction of this Court through the filing of a separate writ petition for the exact same cause of action after the writ petition was dismissed.

The judgement of a competent court is final and cannot be challenged again in collateral procedures, the court ruled. Even if it is incorrect, a court’s or tribunal’s order or decision is enforceable between parties. In essence, the rule of law, which serves as the cornerstone of the administration of justice, includes the binding nature of judgements rendered by courts with competent jurisdiction. The aforementioned writ was dismissed since the petitioner had already filed a review petition.

PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into the category of Best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY NISHTHA GARHWAL

Click here to view the judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat