The petitioners had approached the Court without approaching the appellate authority or even the authority who has issued the impugned garnishee notice. The Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and The Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary in the matter of Global Construction and Anr Vs. Union of India and Ors [W.P.(T) No. 4329 of 2021].

The facts of the case were related to a garnishee notice which was issued under Section 79 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 on 30.09.2021, was challenged by the petitioner by filing the present writ petition. It was submitted that the bank accounts of the petitioners were frozen by respondent 4. The counsel representing the respondents objected to the maintainability of the Writ Petition. The counsel also submitted that the petitioners should have approached the authorities for expeditious disposal of the appeal. Moreover, due to such a stage of the appeal, the present writ petition was not supposed to be entertained. 

The Hon’ble Court stated that the writ petition was disposed of with the liberty to pray for recall of the garnishee notice from the issuer of the garnishee notice. It was open to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority for expeditious disposal of the appeal. 

Considering all the facts and submissions, The Hon’ble Court ruled out that “It is made clear that we have not gone into the merit or otherwise of the present petition and the authorities shall proceed as per the provisions of law… I.A. No. 6165 of 2021 is also closed.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by Bipasha Kundu

What cannot be lost sight of the fact is that the law is well-settled that an ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee and that the position of Guest Teachers is akin to an ad hoc employee as upheld by the High Court of Chhattisgarh through the learned bench led by  Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal in the case of  State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. v. Akhilesh Kumar Mishra  and Ors.(Writ Appeal No.322 of 2019).

The brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioners approached this Court assailing an advertisement dated 21.09.2020 inviting applications for recruitment of Guest Teachers in respect of 71 Eklavya Adarsh Awasi School. Case of the writ petitioners was that after undergoing a due process of selection for being appointed as Guest Teachers, they were selected as Guest Teachers for the academic session 2019-20 and that their performance was also satisfactory. In the background of aforesaid factual matrix, it was contended that inviting applications for Guest Teachers for the subsequent year for the very same subjects which the petitioners were teaching was contrary to the decision of Hon’ble Surpeme Court in State of Haryana & Others v. Piara Singh and Others reported in (1992) 4 SCC 118.

 Mr. Siddharth Dubey, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment was delivered by the learned Single Judge without affording an opportunity to the State to rebut the contention and therefore, the order is liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.

Shri Swajit Singh, learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners, on the other hand, submits that the learned Single Judge relied on an established proposition of law and therefore, even if any opportunity was granted, the same would not have enured to the benefit of the appellants. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the appellants, he submits.

After the perusal of the facts and arguments, the Hon’ble Court held, “The order of appointment of the writ petitioners had a clause mentioning that the appointment so made are till an alternative arrangement is made by way of regular recruitment/contractual/transfer. It is not pleaded in the writ appeal that there are any complaints against the writ petitioners or that their service was otherwise not satisfactory. Therefore, in our considered opinion, even though the appellants were not given an opportunity of contesting the writ petition, under the facts and circumstances of the case, according to our perception, no prejudice was caused to the appellants. In that view of the matter, we see no good ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge and accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed. No costs.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by Vandana Ragwani

In the exercise of the right over any land, the rights of any person are infringed by the occupation or disturbance of the surface of such land, the Government or its assignee shall pay to such person compensation for such infringement as upheld by the High Court of Chhattisgarh through the learned bench led by Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal in the case of Nokhram, Ramayan Sahu and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. (Writ Appeal No.72 of 2021)

The brief facts of the case are that 19 persons including the present petitioners had filed a writ petition being with the grievance that their lands had been acquired by the respondent No.2 for the purpose of leasing out to the respondent No.4 without any payment of compensation and without any rehabilitation programme. By an order dated 20.02.2003, this Court disposed of the aforesaid writ petition providing that the petitioners may file a representation to the Collector along with the copy of the writ petition and copy of the order passed and in the event of filing of any such representation, the Collector would pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioners. It was also provided that if aggrieved by any of the orders passed, the petitioners would be entitled to pursue remedies as may be available in law. The writ petitioners had also filed a writ petition, praying from restraining the respondents from interfering with the lands of the petitioners. On representation being made by the petitioners, the same came to be disposed of on 19.09.2003 as infructuous. Subsequent thereto, this writ petition, out of which the instant appeal arises, came to be filed with prayers to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.4 to provide employment to the petitioners and also to pay compensation to them at the current rate of land of the area.

After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the materials on record, the Hon’ble Court held, “The award dated 20.06.2000 recites that the opposite parties therein are Tiharu and 46 others. The present writ petition was filed by only 7 writ petitioners, out of whom, one has chosen not to prefer any appeal. In the aforesaid backdrop of factual events, when the award has not been challenged at any point of time, determination of compensation afresh, in the considered opinion of this Court, does not arise. 21. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that no interference is called for with regard to the order passed by the learned Single Judge. However, before parting of the records, we observe that if the 9 amounts deposited are fetching any interest, compensation amount shall be paid along with such accrued interest. With the aforesaid modification of the order of the learned Single Judge, writ appeal stands dismissed.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by Vandana Ragwani

The High Court of Bombay at Goa submitted that there can be no quarrel with the proposition that if adverse action is to be undertaken, the concerned party will definitely follow due process of law, allowing and offering an opportunity to the petitioner. The High Court of Bombay at Goa led through the single bench headed by Mr Justice Manish Pitale in the matter of Sujid D. Gokarnkar v. State of Goa [W.P/2324/2021].

The court after considering the urgency projected on behalf of the Petitioner, the court took cognizance at the end of the admission board for that day. The petition was mentioned by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr Shivan Desai at 10:30 a.m. projecting extreme urgency in the matter. It is submitted by the petitioner’s side that Petitioner apprehends demolition of the shack being operated at the Arambol Beach Stretch. It is submitted that although no show cause notice was yet received, there were sufficient grounds for the Petitioner to apprehend such demolition of the shack.

The submission from the petitioner provided that there is a real possibility of the shack being operated at Arambol Beach Stretch by the petitioner, being demolished without even issuing a show-cause notice by the respondent authority.

The Advocate General submitted that there is sufficient material with the respondent, which indicated that the Petitioner is operating the shack from a location not allotted to the Petitioner.

The court concluded that the Petitioner seeks only a restraining order for Respondent no.2 from taking any coercive action in respect of the shack being operated by the petitioner at the Arambol Beach Stretch, without following the due process of law. Further, the court provided that there could be no quarrel with the proposition if adverse action is to be undertaken, the court believed that the respondent would definitely follow due process of law, including the issuance of show cause notice and providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

The court directed “the Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of prayer clause (a) by directing the Respondent authority to follow the principles of natural justice and to issue show cause notice to the Petitioner before taking any action in respect of the shack being operated by the Petitioner at the Arambol Beach Stretch.”

Click here to view the judgement

Judgement reviewed by Pranav Vyas.

Limited relief of protection can be granted to the Applicants only to facilitate their approaching the competent Court of jurisdiction for seeking anticipatory bail after considering the possibility that the accused may be apprehended or arrested by some other competent jurisdiction, it cannot be concluded that the apprehension is misplaced or imaginary. The High Court of Bombay at Goa led by the single bench including Justice Mr Manish Pitale in the cases of Ketan Kanakia v. State of Goa[CRMAB/748/2021] and Jignesh Prakashchandra Pandya v. State of Goa[CRMAB/749/2021].

the Applicants approached this hon’ble court projecting extreme urgency in the matter for the reason that both the Applicants apprehend arrest in connection with crimes registered at Koregaon Park Police Station, Pune for offences under Section 384, 385, 420 read with Sections 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The learned counsel appearing for the Applicants contended that they are seeking limited relief of protection till they approach the competent Court of jurisdiction for seeking anticipatory bail in connection with the crimes alleged against them. For the applicant, Mr Ketan Kanakia in CRMAB no. 748 of 2021, reliance is placed on a medical certificate issued by a Consultant Physician certifying that the Applicant is suffering from ailments and has been advised to rest till 24.11.2021. Mr Jignesh, the applicant in No. 749 submitted that he will require protection for a brief period in order to facilitate the approaching of the competent court for seeking anticipatory bail.

Mr S. G. Bhobe, the Public Prosecutor pointed out that since the FIR is registered at Pune in Maharashtra, provided that the respondent state would not have much to say in the matter. Mr Bhobe submitted that even if the limited relief sought by the Applicant is to be granted, appropriate conditions need to be imposed, including a condition that would ensure that the Applicants do not misuse the limited relief that may be granted by this Court.

The court after a perusal of the judgements N. K. Nayar & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. , Shantanu Shivlal Muluk vs. The State of Maharashtra and Shrikant Gopilal Rathi & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., show that limited relief of protection can be granted to the Applicants only to facilitate their approaching the competent Court of jurisdiction for seeking anticipatory bail.

The court directed “This Court is not going into the merits of the matter or the entitlement of the Applicants for grant of anticipatory bail in any manner. But, at the same time, since there is a possibility that the Applicants may be apprehended or arrested in connection with the said FIR if the Maharashtra Police take assistance of the local police in the State of Goa, it cannot be said that the apprehension is misplaced or imaginary.”

Click here to view the judgement

Judgement reviewed by Pranav Vyas.