0

Delhi HC Dismisses Petition, Validates Eviction Due to Procedural Errors and Bona Fide Requirement

Blog, Delhi High Court , , , ,

Case title : Yatti Dawar and Ors. vs. Ashok Kr. Gupta

Case No. RC.REV. 120/2022 & CM APPL.25011/2022.

Dated on: Reserved on May 17, 2024, and pronounced on May 22, 2024.

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Girish Kathpalia.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Ashok Kr. Gupta owns shop no. 1126/2, Kucha Natwa, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, through a registered sale deed dated 23.08.2007. The shop was rented to Sh. Sunil Dawar, who passed away on 07.04.2018. His legal heirs, including petitioner no.1 (Yatti Dawar) and petitioners no.2-4, continued to occupy the premises. Ashok Kr. Gupta filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, claiming he needed the premises for his unemployed son, Shobhit Gupta, to start a business of readymade ladies garments. He stated the premises were ideally located in a market known for wholesale and retail business of clothes and mentioned no suitable alternate accommodation. Petitioners no.2-4 filed an application under Section 25B(5) seeking leave to contest the eviction but did not provide specific grounds and lacked the required supporting affidavit. The Additional Rent Controller dismissed their application and passed an eviction order against all petitioners since petitioner no.1 did not file any application for leave to contest. Petitioners claimed petitioner no.1 had filed an application for leave to contest, which was allegedly removed from the court record, but this application was identical to the insufficient application of petitioners no.2-4. Petitioners argued the eviction petition was not bona fide, asserting Shobhit Gupta was already engaged in the steel business. The respondent argued that the petitioners’ applications were without merit and reiterated the bona fide need for the premises for Shobhit Gupta’s new business, emphasising no legal restriction on changing business types.

ISSUES

  1. Whether Ashok Kr. Gupta’s claim that he needs the subject premises for his son Shobhit Gupta to start a new business of readymade ladies garments is genuine and constitutes a bona fide requirement under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
  2. Whether the applications for leave to contest the eviction filed by petitioners no.2-4 were procedurally adequate, given that they did not specify any grounds for contesting the eviction and lacked the required supporting affidavit.
  3. Whether petitioner no.1’s application for leave to contest was filed and subsequently removed from the court’s record, as claimed by the petitioners, and the implications of this allegation on the eviction proceedings.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
    • Section 14(1)(e): Provides grounds for eviction of a tenant by the landlord. It allows eviction if the premises are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, or for any purpose for which the premises were let out.
    • Section 25B(5): Special procedure for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement. This section outlines the procedure for a tenant to seek leave to contest an eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e). The tenant must file an affidavit disclosing the grounds on which they seek to contest the eviction.
    • Section 25B(8): Provides the right to appeal. This section allows a tenant to appeal against an order passed by the Controller under Section 25B.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

Mr. Himalaya Gupta, Counsel of the appellant submitted that the case revolves around procedural irregularities and challenges to the bona fide requirement claimed by the respondent. Firstly, the appellant contends that there was a procedural error in the filing of the application for leave to contest. They argue that the application submitted by petitioners no.2-4 lacked specific grounds for contesting the eviction and did not include the necessary supporting affidavit as required by law. However, they assert that this deficiency stemmed from the negligence of their legal representative rather than any intentional oversight on their part. Additionally, the appellant raises the issue of a missing application allegedly filed by petitioner no.1 for leave to contest. They claim that despite filing the application, it was somehow removed from the court’s record. The appellant suggests that this missing application, if considered, could potentially provide additional grounds for contesting the eviction.

Furthermore, the appellant questions the bona fide requirement asserted by the respondent for the premises in question. They argue that the respondent’s claim that the premises are needed for his son, Shobhit Gupta, to start a new business of readymade ladies garments lacks credibility. Specifically, the appellant points out that Shobhit Gupta is already engaged in the steel business, which raises doubts about the genuine need for the premises for a new business venture. Additionally, the appellant implies that the eviction petition may have been filed opportunistically following the death of the original tenant, Sh. Sunil Dawar. They suggest that the respondent’s claim of a bona fide requirement may be driven by ulterior motives rather than a genuine necessity for the premises. These contentions collectively form the basis of the appellant’s argument against the eviction proceedings initiated by the respondent and seek a reconsideration of the eviction order passed by the Additional Rent Controller.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

The respondent, represented by Mr. Nitin Ahlawat and Mr. Kshitiz Ahlawat, Advocates, presents several contentions in response to the appellant’s claims. Firstly, they assert that the applications for leave to contest the eviction filed by petitioners no.2-4 were without merit, a point even acknowledged by the appellant’s counsel. The respondent argues that these applications lacked specific grounds for contesting the eviction and did not adhere to the procedural requirements outlined by law. Therefore, they contend that no further consideration is warranted regarding the procedural adequacy of these applications.

Regarding the missing application allegedly filed by petitioner no.1 for leave to contest, the respondent dismisses the appellant’s claim, arguing that there is no substantive evidence to support this assertion. They suggest that the alleged removal of the application from the court’s record lacks credibility and appears to be a diversionary tactic by the appellant. Thus, they maintain that the missing application should not factor into the court’s decision-making process.

Moreover, the respondent defends their claim of a bona fide requirement for the premises. They emphasise that the premises are genuinely needed for their son, Shobhit Gupta, to establish a new business of readymade ladies garments. They refute the appellant’s argument regarding Shobhit Gupta’s existing engagement in the steel business, asserting that there is no legal restriction preventing individuals from diversifying their business interests. Therefore, they assert that the respondent’s claim of a bona fide requirement remains valid and should be upheld by the court.

In conclusion, the respondent reaffirms the legitimacy of their eviction petition and the bona fide requirement asserted therein. They argue that the appellant’s contentions regarding procedural irregularities and the bona fide requirement lack merit and should not affect the outcome of the case.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

 After considering the arguments presented by both parties, the court proceeded with its analysis of the case. The court first addressed the procedural irregularities regarding the applications for leave to contest the eviction filed by the appellants. It noted that these applications, filed by petitioners no.2-4, lacked specific grounds for contesting the eviction and did not include the required supporting affidavit. The court acknowledged the appellant’s claim that these deficiencies were due to the negligence of their legal representative. However, it emphasised that procedural requirements must be adhered to, and the absence of grounds for contesting the eviction hindered the court’s ability to grant leave to contest.

Regarding the alleged missing application filed by petitioner no.1 for leave to contest, the court found the appellant’s claim lacking substantive evidence. It deemed the alleged removal of the application from the court’s record as not credible, stating that there was no material to support this assertion. Therefore, the court did not consider the missing application as a valid factor in its decision-making process.

Moving on to the respondent’s claim of a bona fide requirement for the premises, the court analysed the circumstances presented. It observed that the respondent genuinely required the premises for their son, Shobhit Gupta, to establish a new business of readymade ladies garments. Despite the appellant’s argument regarding Shobhit Gupta’s existing engagement in the steel business, the court noted that there was no legal impediment preventing individuals from diversifying their business interests. Thus, the court found the respondent’s claim of a bona fide requirement to be valid and upheld.

Based on its analysis of the case, the court concluded that the procedural irregularities in the appellant’s applications for leave to contest and the lack of substantive evidence regarding the missing application for leave to contest filed by petitioner no.1 did not warrant a reconsideration of the eviction order. Additionally, the court found the respondent’s claim of a bona fide requirement for the premises to be genuine and upheld it. Therefore, the court upheld the impugned order and dismissed the appellant’s petition, along with any pending applications.

The court upheld the impugned order passed by the Additional Rent Controller and dismissed the appellant’s petition, along with any pending applications. The judgement was pronounced on May 22, 2024.

“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 a 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 – Shruti Gattani

Click here to view judgement

 

0

Delhi HC rules abatement upon plaintiff’s death on religious accomodation dispute

Blog, Delhi High Court , , ,

Case title: Diocese of Delhi-CNI vs. Mr. Deepak Martin Caleb

Case No. C.R.P 46/2022

Dated on: 21st May, 2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharmesh Sharma

FACTS OF THE CASE

The deceased plaintiff was appointed as a resident priest by the defendant No. 1 (referred to as petitioner) to perform religious services and duties in the Church. The petitioner allowed the deceased to reside in accommodation on the ground floor of the Church premises. Despite initially intending to retire in March 2001, the deceased’s services were extended at the request of the petitioner on an ad hoc basis until 2005.Claiming a crisis in the Church’s affairs, the deceased was given further extensions by defendant No. 3 to continue performing religious services and retain the accommodation until May 14, 2018.However, in May 2018, the petitioner informed the deceased that his services were no longer required, and a new Presbyter in-charge had been appointed. Subsequently, defendant No. 2 instructed the deceased to vacate the premises, declining his request for alternative accommodation in November 2018.In response, the deceased instituted a suit challenging the authority of the petitioner and defendant No. 2, alleging harassment and asserting his right to continue residing in the accommodation inside the Church. The deceased’s suit claimed relief against the termination of his services and challenged the authority of the defendants to manage the Church’s affairs, particularly regarding his accommodation rights. The petitioner argued that the deceased’s rights were personal and did not survive his death. They contended that the accommodation was provided as an incidental benefit for the performance of religious duties and that the right to retain it ended with the termination of services and the plaintiff’s death. The court noted that the deceased’s claim to the accommodation was not based on tenancy rights but on possessory rights. It emphasized that no hereditary rights were created, and the deceased’s successor could not continue the suit as a legal heir. Referencing legal precedents, including a case involving the appointment of priests in Hindu temples, the court concluded that the deceased’s personal rights terminated with his death and did not devolve onto his legal representatives. Additionally, the court addressed arguments made by the respondent’s counsel regarding a Supreme Court order granting temporary relief but clarified that it did not determine the survival of legal rights in the pending suit. After analyzing the arguments and legal principles, the court concluded that the deceased’s suit abated upon his death, and the previous order allowing its continuation was set aside. The court instructed that a copy of its order be sent to the trial court for information and compliance, effectively ending the proceedings related to the deceased’s suit.

ISSUES

  1.  Whether the deceased plaintiff’s legal rights continue beyond his death and can be pursued by his legal representatives.
  2. Examining the validity of the defendants’ actions in terminating the deceased’s services and demanding his eviction from the accommodation.
  3. Determining whether the deceased’s rights were personal and extinguished upon his death or if they could be inherited or transferred to his legal representatives.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Order 22, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC): This rule deals with the abatement of a suit in case of the death of a plaintiff or defendant and specifies the circumstances under which the suit may or may not abate.
  2. Principle of “actio personalis moritur cum persona”: This Latin maxim means “a personal action dies with the person.” It applies to certain actions ex delicto, such as defamation or personal injury, where the right to sue extinguishes upon the death of the person.
  3. Legal Precedents: Referring to past judgments like Puran Singh v. State of Punjab and Girja Nandini v. Bijendra Narain, which establishes when the right to sue survives the death of a party and when it does not.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

The appellant, representing the deceased plaintiff, contends that the deceased was initially appointed as a resident priest by the petitioner/defendant No.1. It is acknowledged that the petitioner allowed the deceased to reside in the accommodation on the church premises. Despite the acknowledgment of retirement, the deceased’s services were extended multiple times, indicating an ongoing engagement with the church. The appellant argues that the deceased, in his capacity as a resident priest, faced harassment from the defendants, particularly from petitioner/defendant No.1 and defendant No.2. The deceased challenged the authority of these defendants not only for the non-extension of his tenure but also for alleged harassment. The contention revolves around the termination of his services, which the deceased perceived as unlawful and unjustified. Another key contention is regarding the nature of the legal rights asserted by the deceased. The appellant argues that the rights claimed by the deceased, including the right to continue residing in the accommodation provided by the church, were personal in nature and not heritable. This implies that these rights did not transfer to the appellant upon the deceased’s death.The appellant further contends that the respondent, as the son of the deceased, does not inherit any rights to become a religious priest of the church or challenge the authority of the defendants. The appellant emphasises that the accommodation provided to the deceased was for the sole purpose of facilitating his religious duties and did not confer any hereditary rights upon his heirs. Additionally, the appellant distinguishes between possessory rights and hereditary rights. While acknowledging that the respondent seeks to protect possessory rights in the premises, the appellant asserts that no hereditary rights were created in favour of the respondent. Therefore, the appellant suggests that any claim to the premises should be pursued separately from the deceased’s lawsuit. These contentions collectively form the appellant’s argument against the respondent’s claim and serve as the basis for challenging the lower court’s decision.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

The respondent contends that the deceased plaintiff challenged the authority of the petitioner/defendant No.1 and defendant No.2. This challenge is not solely based on the termination of his services but also involves allegations of harassment at the instance of defendants No.1 and 2. The respondent argues that such actions justify his right to maintain the suit and seek relief from the court. The respondent asserts that the deceased plaintiff was appointed as a religious priest in the Church in his individual and personal capacity by petitioner/defendant No.1. Moreover, he was allotted and allowed to retain accommodation in the suit premises inside the church premises solely to facilitate him in discharging religious duties. Therefore, the respondent argues that the plaintiff’s legal rights were personal to him and not heritable, which justifies his right to continue the suit.The respondent further contends that even if an extension was granted to the deceased plaintiff, the legal right, if any, available to him was a personal right of action that died with his death and was not transferable or heritable. Therefore, the respondent argues that the relief claimed by the deceased plaintiff challenging the authority of the petitioner/defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 essentially died with him and cannot be pursued further by his successor or legal heir.  The respondent emphasises that no hereditary rights are created in favour of the respondent to continue with the suit filed by the deceased plaintiff as his successor or legal heir. The respondent refers to an analogy regarding the right of a pujari to provide services in Hindu temples to support this argument, suggesting that continuity of service does not confer an independent right upon successors. These contentions form the basis of the respondent’s argument in the case, asserting the legitimacy of maintaining the suit despite the death of the original plaintiff.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The court’s analysis and judgement in the case revolve around interpreting the legal rights and obligations concerning the deceased plaintiff’s tenure as a religious priest in the Church and his right to retain accommodation on the church premises. 

The court begins by examining whether the legal right to sue survives the death of the plaintiff, as per legal provisions outlined in Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). It acknowledges the principle that a personal action dies with the death of the person, citing the maxim “actio personalis moritur cum persona.” However, it notes exceptions where the right to sue survives despite the death of the party, particularly in cases where the relief sought would not be rendered nugatory by the party’s death.

 The court proceeds to analyse the nature of the deceased plaintiff’s rights and tenure as a religious priest in the Church. It observes that the plaintiff’s appointment and accommodation were facilitated by the petitioner/defendant No.1 to enable him to discharge religious duties. The court underscores that the plaintiff’s rights were personal and not heritable, emphasising that the accommodation was provided as an incidental benefit to his role as a priest.

Examining the contentions raised in the suit, the court considers the plaintiff’s challenge to the authority of the petitioner/defendant No.1 and defendant No.2, as well as allegations of harassment. It concludes that the relief sought by the plaintiff challenging his termination and authority essentially died with him, as it was a personal right of action.

Addressing the respondent’s contention that he, as the legal heir of the deceased plaintiff, should be allowed to continue the suit, the court rejects this argument. It emphasizes that no hereditary rights are created in favor of the respondent to pursue the suit, as the deceased plaintiff’s rights were personal and not transferable or heritable.

The court draws parallels with legal precedents related to the appointment of priests in Hindu temples to support its analysis. It highlights that continuity of service does not confer an independent right upon successors, further reinforcing its stance on the non-heritability of the plaintiff’s rights.

 Based on its analysis, the court concludes that the impugned order allowing the respondent’s application under Order 22 Rule 3 of the CPC suffers from patent illegality and constitutes an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction. Consequently, the court sets aside the order and declares that the suit filed by the deceased plaintiff abates, meaning it comes to an end and shall not be further proceeded with in the Trial Court.

“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 a 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 – Shruti Gattani

Click here to view judgement

0

Delhi HC Validates Externment of Habitual Offender for Public Safety

Blog, Delhi High Court , , ,

Case title : Rajjan @ Ashu Chauhan vs. The State of NCT of Delhi

Case No. W.P. (CRL) 955/2024

Dated on: Reserved on 22nd April,2024 ; Pronounced on 21st May,2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Sharma

FACTS OF THE CASE

 The petitioner, a habitual offender with a criminal record from 2017 to 2022, faced externment proceedings initiated by the police due to his persistent involvement in crimes such as cheating, criminal trespass, breach of trust, forgery, extortion, assault, and intimidation. Witnesses, who were too fearful to testify publicly, provided in-camera statements describing how the petitioner, often accompanied by armed associates, created a climate of fear and threatened those who opposed his illegal activities. The competent authority, after reviewing the statements and other relevant materials, concluded that the petitioner’s continuous presence was hazardous to the public, necessitating his externment under Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978. Despite the petitioner’s challenge to the scope and duration of the externment, the court upheld the order, emphasizing that it was based on credible evidence and aimed at ensuring public safety. The Lieutenant Governor later reduced the externment period from two years to one year, but the geographical scope remained the entire National Capital Territory of Delhi to effectively address enforcement challenges.

ISSUES

  1. The legality and validity of the externment order issued against the petitioner under     Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, questioning the sufficiency of evidence and the subjective satisfaction of the competent authority.
  2. The geographical scope of the externment order, specifically questioning why the entire National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi was included and not just the specific area associated with the alleged offences or concerns related to the petitioner’s activities.
  3. The duration and proportionality of the externment order, considering whether the initially set duration of two years (later reduced to one year) is proportionate to the alleged offences and whether the imposition of the order aligns with principles of fairness and necessity.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978: This section empowers the competent authority to external individuals from specific areas within the National Capital Territory of Delhi if their presence is deemed hazardous to society.
  2. Section 56(1)(bb) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951: While not explicitly mentioned in the text, the case refers to the provisions of this act to outline the grounds and procedures for externment orders.
  3. Precedents and Case Law: The court referred to various judgments, including Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar v. Dy. Commr of Police, State of Maharastra, (1973) 1 SCC 372, and Gazi Saduddin v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 7 SCC 330. These judgments provide precedents and interpretations related to the legal aspects of externment orders, including the requirements for sufficient evidence, procedural fairness, and the scope of such orders.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that the externment order issued against the appellant was excessive and lacked proper reasoning. They contended that the order should have been more specific regarding the area of externment and the reasons behind selecting the NCT of Delhi as the externment area. The appellant’s counsel raised concerns about the lack of a clear link between the offences registered against the appellant between 2017-2022 and the externment order issued in 2024. They argued that this lack of connection undermined the validity of the externment order.The appellant’s counsel also questioned the sufficiency of the material considered by the competent authority in reaching its decision. They argued that there was a lack of opportunity given to the appellant to adequately explain the circumstances surrounding the offences and the grounds for the externment order. These contentions formed the basis of the appellant’s challenge to the legality and validity of the externment order in the case.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

The contentions of the respondent are not explicitly mentioned.The casemainly focuses on the arguments and observations made by the court regarding the petitioner’s case and the legal provisions relevant to it. The potential contentions that the respondent might have made in the case is that the respondent may argue that the externment order was necessary to maintain public safety and order in the locality where the petitioner was active. They could assert that the petitioner’s continuous involvement in criminal activities, as documented by the competent authority, posed a significant threat to the peace and security of the community. The respondent could contend that witnesses were reluctant to come forward and testify against the petitioner in public due to fear of retaliation. They might argue that the petitioner and his associates used intimidation tactics, such as threats of violence, to silence potential witnesses, thereby obstructing justice and impeding law enforcement efforts. Another contention could be that the petitioner demonstrated a pattern of habitual criminal behaviour, as evidenced by his involvement in multiple criminal cases over a significant period. The respondent may argue that the externment order was justified based on the petitioner’s persistent engagement in illegal activities and the need to protect society from further harm. These contentions would likely support the respondent’s position that the externment order was justified and necessary for the maintenance of law and order in the community.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The court’s analysis and judgement provide a comprehensive overview of the case, meticulously examining the arguments presented by both parties and applying legal precedents to reach a verdict.

The judgement begins by addressing the petitioner’s awareness of the proceedings initiated by the police station and the ample opportunity provided to explain the circumstances. It then proceeds to discuss the petitioner’s contention regarding the link between the offences registered from 2017-2022 and the externment order passed in 2024. This includes citing the Competent Authority’s reasoning for the externment order, which was based on evidence such as witness statements recorded in camera.

Legal precedents, particularly judgments from the Hon’ble Supreme Court, are referenced to provide a framework for evaluating externment orders. Cases like Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar v. Dy. Commr of Police, State of Maharashtra, and Gazi Saduddin v. State of Maharashtra are quoted to support the court’s analysis. These precedents establish the criteria for passing an externment order and the circumstances under which such orders can be upheld.

One significant aspect addressed in the judgement is the contention regarding the excessiveness of the externment order, particularly concerning the area of externment. The court compares the present case to previous rulings to determine if the order was justified based on the circumstances. It examines whether the area chosen for externment was proportionate to the petitioner’s unlawful activities and whether it served the intended purpose of maintaining public order and safety.

The judgement also mentions that the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor had already reduced the period of externment from two years to one year, indicating a consideration of the severity of the order. This reduction reflects a balance between the need for public safety and the petitioner’s rights.

In conclusion, the court finds that the externment order and the subsequent reduction by the Lieutenant Governor do not suffer from any error. Therefore, it dismisses the petition and disposes of it accordingly. The judgement directs the immediate uploading of the judgement on the court’s website, ensuring transparency and accessibility to the public.

“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 a 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 – Shruti Gattani

 

Click here to view judgement

0

“Estoppel Denied: Court Upholds Ineligibility Criteria, Dismisses Writ Petition for District Judge Post”

Blog , , , ,

Title: Trupti Mayee Patra vs. Registrar, Examination, Orissa High Court

Citation: W.P.(C) No. 35020 Of 2023

Coram: MR. JUSTICE D.DASH, MR. JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

Decided on: 3-11-23

Introduction:

This case involves a writ petition presented through a hybrid arrangement (virtual/physical) mode. The petitioner seeks the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The primary relief sought is a direction to the Opposite Party to include the petitioner in the list of eligible candidates for participating in the recruitment examination for the position of District Judge from the Bar, 2023. The specific demand is for the issuance of a fresh list to address the petitioner’s inclusion in the said examination

Facts:

The petitioner, initially enrolled as an advocate with the Orissa State Bar Council, practiced from 2004 to 2014. Subsequently, she joined as a Junior Clerk in the office of District & Sessions Judge, Malkangiri, surrendered her license in 2016, and later became an Assistant Public Prosecutor from March 13, 2018. The petitioner applied for the post of District Judge from the Bar in 2020, 2021, and 2022 but was unsuccessful.

In 2023, the High Court of Orissa issued an advertisement for the same post. The petitioner applied, but her eligibility was questioned, and she was found ineligible due to the requirement of seven years of continuous Bar practice. The respondent argues that the petitioner does not meet this criterion. The petitioner contends that having been allowed to sit for the examination in previous years, she should not be disqualified this time. The court notes the petitioner’s active practice from 2004 to 2014 but finds that she lacks seven years of continuous practice preceding her application.

The case revolves around the eligibility criteria outlined in Article 233 of Chapter-VI (subordinate Courts) of the Constitution of India, specifically Clause 2, governing the appointment of District Judges. The court has to determine whether the petitioner fulfils the necessary criteria for eligibility in the recruitment examination for the post of District Judge from the Bar.

Court analysis & judgement:

In this judgment, the court addresses the petitioner’s plea for inclusion in the eligibility list for the recruitment examination to the post of District Judge from the Bar. The petitioner relies on the principle of estoppel, arguing that having been allowed to appear in the examination in previous years, she should not be disqualified this time. The court dismisses this argument, emphasizing that the inadvertent allowance of a person to appear in an examination earlier, who was not eligible, does not confer a right to appear when the necessary eligibility criteria are not met. The court distinguishes the relied-upon decisions in Basanta Kumar Mohanty and N. Murugesan, stating that they are not applicable to the present case due to different contexts and statutory bars.

The judgment refers to the eligibility criteria stated in the advertisement by the High Court of Orissa, which requires candidates to have at least seven years of practice as an advocate as of April 1, 2023. The court concludes that the petitioner does not meet this criterion, rendering her ineligible for the examination.

The court cites the decisions of the Apex Court in Deepak Aggarwal and Dheeraj Mor, applying them to the present case. It asserts that the petitioner’s lack of continuous practice for seven years makes her ineligible. Consequently, the court upholds the decision of the Opposite Party (OP) to consider the petitioner ineligible for the post of District Judge, stating that it does not require interference. As a result, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.

“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 a 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.”

Written By: Gauri Joshi

Click here to view judgement

1 … 6 7 8