Category Archives: Blog

A case for applicability of the doctrine of legitimate expectation arises when an administrative body by reason of a representation, which it would be within its powers to fulfil, unless some overriding public interest comes in the way as held by the High Court of J&K and Ladakh through a learned bench of Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul in the case of MS Creations Architects, Engineers, Planners, Interior Designers Vs Union Territory of J&K and others [WP(C) no.2343/2021 CM no.7526/2021].

The case set up by petitioner was that petitioner-firm is a renowned architectural cum structural consultancy, having expertise in the field and that petitioner has also been elected as fellow of Indian institute of Architects bearing Registration No. 21902. It was averred that J&K Project Construction Corporation Limited (for brevity “JKPCC”) is a government owned corporation registered under the Companies Act as it is entrusted with function of effecting constructions of government buildings in Union Territory of J&K and has also power to float tenders on behalf of the Government of J&K for getting the government buildings constructed under its control and supervision. It was stated that JKPCC was also empowered to empanel consultants for providing architectural-cum-structural designs through approved and registered architects. In terms of its decision JKPCC is stated to have empaneled as many as 23 architectural and structural firms for providing the consultancy about the designs and structures etceterea of the buildings intended to be constructed by it. The petitioner claims that he figured at Serial No.10 in the panel. In terms of communication no.PS/MD/ 8339-41 dated 10th March 2016, the earlier communication was superseded with a situation that the agreement required to be drawn with empaneled consultancy firms, shall be work specific only.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondents insists that public authorities must be left with same liberty as they have in framing the policies, even while entering into contracts because many contracts amount to implementation or projection of policies of the Government but it cannot be overlooked that unlike policies, contracts are legally binding commitments and that in contracts having commercial element, some more discretion has to be conceded to the authorities so that they may enter into contracts with persons keeping an eye on the augmentation of the revenue. He has placed reliance on Abdul Samad Wani v. Union Territory of J&K, AIR 2021, J&K 174.

After hearing both the parties and referring to Judgments of the Supreme Court, the High Court held that “An examination of the afore-noted decisions shows that the golden thread running through all these decisions is that a case for applicability of the doctrine of legitimate expectation, now accepted in the subjective sense as part of our legal jurisprudence, arises when an administrative body by reason of a representation or by past practice or conduct aroused an expectation, which it would be within its powers to fulfil, unless some overriding public interest comes in the way. However, a person, who bases his claim on the doctrine of legitimate expectation in the first instance, has to satisfy that he has relied on the said representation and the denial of that expectation has worked to his detriment. The Court could interfere only if the decision taken by the authority was found to be arbitrary, unreasonable or in gross abuse of power or in violation of principles of natural justice and not taken in public interest. But a claim based on mere legitimate expectation cannot ipso facto give a right to invoke these principles.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment Reviewed by – Aryan Bajaj

When there is substance in the submission of learned counsel. The Tribunal is required to deliberate upon, discuss and decide, in detail, as held by the Hon’ble High Court of J&K and Ladakh through a learned bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs Shameema Begum and others [CMAM no. 76/2017].

Brief facts of the case are that a claim petition was filed by claimants – respondents 1 to 4 herein, before the Tribunal on 12th August 2011, averring therein that on 7th June 2011, respondent no.8 (driver) was rashly and negligently plying offending vehicle and on reaching Mirgund on Srinagar-Baramulla NHW, he lost control over offending vehicle and struck against a pedestrian, namely, Ghulam Rasool Antoo, who was standing on the correct side of the road with due care and caution, with the result deceased sustained multiple fatal injuries on various parts of his body, and ultimately succumbed to injuries in hospital. Offending vehicle was insured with appellant Insurance Company. Claimants/respondents 1 to 4 sought grant of compensation of Rs.25.00 Lakhs along with interest. Appellant Insurance Company resisted claim petition before the Tribunal on the ground that driver of offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident. It was also stated that offending vehicle at the time of alleged accident was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy, permit and provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act. It was admitted that offending vehicle was insured with appellant-Insurance Company.

After hearing both the parties, the Hon’ble High Court observed that learned senior counsel for appellant Insurance Company has stated that the Tribunal has not dealt with Issue no.2 in proper perspective. Respondent no.8, driver of offending vehicle, was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. However, the Tribunal did not properly appreciate this facet of the matter while deciding aforesaid Issue. According to him, finding returned by the Tribunal on Issue no.2 is bad in law as there was breach on the part of owner of offending vehicle and, therefore, insurance company is not bound to prove terms and conditions of insurance policy. It is contended that driving licence of respondent no.8 could not be verified as the records pertaining to the period from 05.02.2002 to 29.01.2006 and the record pertaining to HGV endorsement w.e.f. 05.07.2002 to 07.05.2007 was missing from the office of ARTO Doda. It is also contended that driving licence was renewed from ARTO Udhampur w.e.f. 27.03.2008 to 26.03.2011 and thereafter the said licence was renewed from 08.07.2011 to 07.07.2014 and, therefore, the licence was not renewed after 03 months of the date of accident. It is also contended that the Tribunal while passing impugned award has not appreciated the law correctly.

In conclusion, the court stated “There is substance in the submission of learned senior counsel qua validity of driving licence. The Tribunal was required to deliberate upon, discuss and decide Issue no.2 vis-à-vis valid and effective driving licence of driver of offending vehicle, in detail, which, however, is missing in the present case. So, the Tribunal is required to discuss comprehensively Issue no.2 and come up with a lucid finding thereabout. To this extent impugned Award is liable to be set-aside.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by – Aryan Bajaj

The influence was garnered from the ratio in Commissioner of Income Tax and Others v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal[(2014) 1 SCC 603]. That, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon & Others[(2010) 8 SCC 110] propounded that the High Court overlooked the settled law that it will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this Rule applies with equal rigour in matters involving the recovery of taxes, cess, fees, etc. In the Hon’ble High Court of Sikkim led through the single-bench by Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai in the matters of The Gangtok Municipal Corporation v. Union of India and Ors.[WP(C)/38/2019].

The facts of the case are the Petitioner being a Statutory Body established under the Sikkim Municipalities Act, 2007, claims that the provisions of the Employees‟ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, (for short the “EPF & MP Act, 1952”) is not applicable in the State of Sikkim as it was not enforced in compliance to the provisions of Article 371F of the Constitution of India.

It is also the Petitioner’s case that the provisions of the EPF & MP Act, 1952, is not applicable to the Petitioner Corporation.

The counsel from the respondents contended that where an alternative, efficacious remedy is available, the Writ Jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked. That, it is settled law that Petitions under Writ Jurisdiction are not to be entertained by the High Court when an efficacious, alternative remedy is available, this being a Rule of self-imposed limitation, although discretion lies with the Court to permit a Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, despite the existence of such a remedy. That, it is also a Rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a Rule of law.

The counsel for the Petitioners, while relying on the ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. S.K. Nasiruddin Beedi Merchant Ltd., v. Central Provident Fund Commissioner & Anr. and in State of H.P. and Others v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. and Another, argued that the Respondents No.2 and 3 have assumed jurisdiction when they did not possess any, as they were not entitled to issue Orders such as the impugned one. That, the pivotal contentions of the Petitioner are that the EPF & MP Act, 1952, is not applicable to it and the Petitioner is not bound to pay the amount as ordered in the impugned Order, as the concerned Employees are not that of the Petitioner Corporation. Hence, the Petition is maintainable.

The court concluded “Necessary calculations have been made for the Financial Year 2012-13, Financial Year 2013-14, Financial Year 2014-15 and Financial Year 2015-16. It was further ordered inter alia. Section 7I provides for Appeals to Tribunals and Section 7L to Orders of Tribunal

The High Court of Sikkim directed “In light of the specific provisions of law and the observations made in the ratiocinations referred to supra by Learned Counsel for the Respondents No.2 and 3, in my considered opinion, before invoking the Writ Jurisdiction of this Court, the Petitioner is to necessarily exhaust the remedy available to it under the Statute.”

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

Click here to view the judgement.

The Petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the dismissal order dated 21st 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner was enrolled in CRPF on 11 July 2021 and seeking his reinstatement in service, and the same issue was held in the judgement passed by a division bench judge HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA, in the matter CT/GD MAHAKAR V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. dealt with an issue mentioned above.

The petitioner will also seek directions to the Respondents to change the Petitioner’s punishment to ‘discharge’ instead of ‘dismissal’ from service and/or allow the Petitioner to take voluntary retirement or grant compulsory retirement in the starting stage itself,

Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner was enrolled in CRPF on 11 July 2021. He states that the Petitioner requested, for grant of casual leave from 07th September 2019 to 20^th.  September 2019 to undergo treatment for his deteriorating health condition. The petitioner was granted casual leave for the said period.

Petitioner was still critically ill and he had duly informed the unit authorities regarding his health condition and also furnished his medical documents as proof of his unstable health condition, however, the authorities failed to appreciate the same and instead directed him to report back to the unit immediately.

It was found that the perusal of the paper book reveals that two departmental enquiries were conducted against the Petitioner simultaneously. While one was for producing a fake educational certificate, the other was on account of overstay of leave, even after knowing that the Petitioner was found guilty in both the departmental enquiries, yet the punishment of dismissal was imposed on the ground that the Petitioner had produced a fake educational certificate.

In the present writ petition, the Petitioner had challenged the departmental enquiry which was initiated on the ground of over-stay and desertion, It was also pertinent to mention that no medical certificate has even been enclosed along with the present writ petition.

The court perused the facts and argument’s presented, it thought that- “In fact, this Court is of the view that the petitioner had overstayed leave/deserted his post for nearly one and a half year to avoid giving any response to the allegation of submitting fake educational qualification. The omission to deal with the allegation of submission of fake educational qualification in the present case is not an innocent one, but a part of the ‘strategy’ that had been adopted by the petitioner right from the time the disciplinary proceedings had commenced. Consequently, the request of counsel for the petitioner for withdrawal of the present writ petition is declined and the writ petition along with pending application being bereft of merit, is dismissed”.

Click here for judgment

Judgment Reviewed by: Mandira BS 

The case arose out of a commercial transaction between the parties, the same had no bearing in the matter so long as the basic ingredients of the offence were satisfied in the case. Such an opinion was held by The Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand before The Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary in the matter of Ravi Shankar Kumar Vs. The State of Jharkhand [Cr. Revision No. 1031 of 2012]. 

The facts of the case were associated with an application for criminal revision by the petitioner directly from jail. The said application was filed to challenge the legality and validity of the judgment passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa dated 31.01.2012. According to the said impugned judgment, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had dismissed the criminal appeal. The petitioner was convicted under Sections 406 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned trial court. The Trial court had sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years under Section 406 and Rigorous Imprisonment for one year under Section 427 of the IPC.

Amicus curiae for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner’s entire dispute case arose from a civil dispute between the parties. The petitioner was the Secretary of the NGO and was entrusted with stitching clothes for school children. As per the tender, the clothing was not found fit. He also submitted that nothing on record was found regarding the dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner by the courts below. The amicus curiae also stated that no evidence was found regarding the total length of cloth handed over to the petitioner. He submitted that no criminality was found in the instant case. He contended that the whole case was based upon the measurement taken at the back of the petitioner. The counsel for the opposition stated the impugned judgments were well reasoned and were based on proper evidence and no material irregularity was indicated. 

Considering all the facts, The Hon’ble Court stated that “… This Court finds no illegality or material irregularity or perversity in the impugned judgments calling for interference under revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned trial court and confirmed by the learned appellate court is upheld and the present criminal revision is hereby dismissed.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by Bipasha Kundu