#writpetition Archives

2 Apr

Appeals against the Contempt orders of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) available only before the Supreme Court and not High Court: Allahabad High Court

Blog #allahabadhc, #Appeals, #Article226, #CAT, #centraladministrativetribunal, #ContemptofCourtOrders, #HighCourt, #Jurisdiction, #Section17ofAdministrativeTribunalAct, #Section19ofContemtofCourtAct, #SupremeCourt, #writpetition

Case title: Dr Brajendra Singh Chauhan & Ors. Vs Central Administrative Tribunal & Ors

Case no.: Writ Application No. – 602 of 2024

Order on: March 22nd, 2024

Quoram: Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Donadi Ramesh

Facts of the case

The petitioners who were initially appointed as Short Term Medical Officers had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Allahabad Bench and sought to issue an order to the respondents for their appointment as regular Assistant Medical Officers. The CAT ruled in favour of the petitioners. However, the petitioners alleging non-compliance of the order by the respondents again approached the CAT by filing a contempt petition under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Tribunal noting a substantially compliance of the order by the respondents disposed of the application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners appealed before the Allahabad High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Respondent’s Counsel submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 by citing Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 (AT Act) in conjunction with Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (CC Act).

Legal Provisions

Article 323A – It empowers the Parliament to enact the law providing for adjudication or trial by Administrative Tribunals and specifies the jurisdiction and powers of such Tribunals including their power to punish for contempt.

Section 14 & Section 15 of the AT Act – It specifies the jurisdiction, powers and authority for the Central Administrative Tribunal and State Administrative Tribunal respectively.

Section 17 of the AT Act – It empowers the Tribunal to punish for contempt of court and exercise its power similar to the High Court with regard to provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Section 12 of the CC Act – It provides Punishment for Contempt of Court.

Section 19 of the CC Act – It provides that the appeals against the orders of Tribunal shall lie as a matter of right to the Bench of at least two Judges of High Court, where the contempt order is passed by the Single Judge and it shall lie to the Supreme Court where the order is passed by the Bench.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement

The Court addressing the question of maintainability of writ petition filed before the High Court against the orders passed under the Contempt of Courts Act delved into Article 323 A, Sections 14 & 17 of the AT Act and Sections 11, 12 & 19 of the CC Act. It drew a distinction between the orders passed by the Tribunal under Section 14(1) of the AT Act and the order passed under Section 17 of the AT Act. The Bench noted that the while there is no statutory remedy of appeal available under the former, the latter provides the same by virtue of Section 19 of the CC Act. Further, it noted that since the contempt proceeding under Section 17 of the AT Act is dealt with by a bench of not less than two members, the orders passed would be appealable only before the Supreme Court. Hence, it ruled that any order or decision of the Tribunal under the Contempt of Courts Act shall be appealable only to the Supreme Court within 60 days from the date of the order.

The Court heavily relied on the precedence laid down in the cases of T. Sudhakar Prasad Vs Government of A.P. and L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India and held that the orders of the Tribunal under the Contempt of Courts Act shall be appealable only before the Supreme Court and no writ petition against the same shall be maintainable before the High Court under Article 226 / 277 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, it dismissed the present petition citing the lack of maintainability. This judgement thus, throws light on the jurisdictional scope of appeals arising from contempt proceedings under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act and clears line on the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in matters regarding contempt orders issued by the Tribunal.

“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 – Keerthi K

Click here to view the Judgement

4 Jan

Application for grant of NOC should to be dealt with according to the rules in force at the date of disposal of the application: Kerala High Court

Prime Legal

Uncategorized #application, #keralahighcourt, #NOC, #writpetition

Case Title: A.H. Sheriff v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Case No: WP(C) No. 33324 of 2023

Decided on: 3rd January, 2024

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

Facts of the Case

The petitioner submitted Ext.P1 application dated 28.05.2019 before the District Collector for more than four years for grant of No Objection Certificate (NOC) for quarrying granite from revenue puramboke land. Ext.P5 Government Order bringing comprehensive guidelines for grant of NOC for mining of minerals from Government land was issued on 28.01.2021. The application of the petitioner was rejected by Ext.P4 order dated 21.09.2023, much after the issuance of guidelines in Ext.P5.

The case of the petitioner is that his application has to be considered on the basis of the law prevailing at the time of submission of the application and Ext.P5 order issued subsequently cannot be relied upon to reject the application. The learned Senior Government Pleader would contend that the petitioner has no vested right to have his application considered applying any particular provision and that he has not approached this Court before issuance of Ext P5 order, seeking a direction to consider his application for NOC.

Issues

Whether the application for grant of NOC has to be dealt according to the law prevailing at the time of submission of the application or rules in force at the date of disposal of the application?
Whether the applicant of NOC has a vested right to have an application for grant of NOC to be dealt with in a particular way, by applying particular provisions?

Court’s analysis and decision

The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala has relied on State of Tamil Nadu v. M/s. Hind Stone and Others [(1981) 2 SCC 205: AIR 1981 SC 711] while dealing with this writ petition. In Hind Stone case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the action of the Government in keeping applications for lease pending for long and later, rejecting them by applying a rule made subsequently, is not open to challenge. The Court observed that no one has a vested right to the grant of lease and none can claim a vested right to have an application for grant of lease to be dealt with in a particular way, by applying particular provisions and that in the absence of any vested right, the application has necessarily to be dealt with according to the rules in force as on the date of disposal of the application despite the fact that there is long delay since the making of the application.

Though there is inordinate delay on the part of the District Collector in considering Ext.P1 application for grant of NOC for mining of minerals from Government land, since during the pendency of the application Ext.P5 Government Order has been issued providing comprehensive guidelines for grant of NOC, the application of the petitioner has to be considered in the light of Ext.P5. Ext.P5 Government Order is not under challenge in this writ petition. There is no direction sought for and obtained by the petitioner from this Court for an early consideration of Ext.P1 application before issuance of Ext.P5 Government Order. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner has no vested right to seek Ext.P1 application to be considered by applying the procedure as applicable before the issuance of Ext.P5.

The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Written by- Afshan Ahmad

Click to read the judgement

18 Dec

Teachers cannot take the fall for the mistake of management during appointment of vacancy – Bombay HC

Prime Legal

Blog #bombayhc, #justsice, #law, #legalnews, #writpetition

TITLE : Sandeep Chudaman Shinde v The State of Maharashtra

CORAM : Hon’ble justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Hon’ble Justice Y.G Khobragade

DATE : 8^th December, 2023

CITATION : W.P No 7740 of 2021

FACTS

The petitioners were Education Officers and were granted a pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 and were regularly receiving their salaries. A complaint was filed by a stranger addressing the Deputy Director of Education, alleging that the Petitioners were illegally appointed as Educational Officers. The salaries of the petitioners were continuously withheld despite being in the service of shikshan Sevak for 3 years and having an ID.

After certain investigations, it was found that the petitioners were not appointed by following the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. The petitioners got appointed for seats which was not vacant and the approval for ID was not submitted to the concerned office in appropriate time.

LAWS INVOLVED

Section 5 of the M.E.P.S Act, 1977 gives certain obligation for management of private schools.

It states that :

The management shall appoint for permanent vacancy as soon as they find a qualified person. The vacancy can be filled through an act of promotion as well.
The person appointed shall be in a probation period for 2 years except for Assistant teacher(probationary)
Assistant teacher(probationary) will be a teacher after 3 years of probation period
If the management decides the work of the teacher is not up to the mark during the probation period, they may terminate them with one month notice period. If he/she is reappointed, the previous probation period will be considered.
The management shall also fill temporary vacancies by appointing qualified persons.

ISSUES

Whether the appointment of petitioners when there was no vacancy valid?

JUDGEMENT

The court held that the when the petitioners have been working for so long, the approval of appointment cannot be rejected by the Education Department unless theres any fraudulent or illegality turns out from the employment. The fault of the management should not be at the burden of the employees. The court stated that both the Petitioners are qualified and have the requisite qualifications for being selected and appointed as Shikshan Sevak and to be confirmed in employment as Assistant Teachers and if the Management was responsible for certain irregularities, the Petitioners could not be faulted.

The court also directed the Education Department to not entertain complaints from strangers and unconnected persons.

Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran

Click here to view judgement

8 Dec

In presence of an alternative remedy to appeal, a Writ petition won’t suffice in the court of law : Bombay HC

Prime Legal

Blog #alternative remedy, #bombayhc, #Legal News, #writjurisdiction, #writpetition

TITLE : Rahibai Laxman Lokhande & Ors. V State of Maharashtra

CITATION : W.P No 7400 of 2023

CORAM : Hon’ble justice Madhav J. Jamdar

DATE: 5^th December, 2023

INTRODUCTION :

The challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the legality and validity of the order dated 18th April 2023 passed by the District Superintendent of Land Records in Appeal.

FACTS :

The contesting Respondents that the Writ Petition be not entertained in view of the availability of the alternate remedy. He submitted that there is Appeal provided under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.

Section 247 provides that, an appeal shall lie from any decision or order passed by a revenue or survey office specified in column 1 of the Schedule E under this Code or any other law for the time being in force to the officer specified in column 2 of that Schedule whether or not such decision or order may itself have been passed on appeal from the decision of order of the officer specified in column 1 of the said Schedule: Provided that, in no case the number of appeals shall exceed two.

The Petitioners contend that the impugned order itself has been passed in Appeal and therefore, the Second Appeal is not competent under Section 247 of the said Code.

COURT’S ANALYSIS

The court held that Section 247 of the said Code very clearly specifies that two Appeals are competent and the Appellate Authorities are described in Schedule E.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed in view of availability of the alternate remedy of statutory Appeal under Section 247 of the said Code, with no order as to costs. It is clarified that the Petitioners can file the Appeal as contemplated under Section 247 of the said Code challenging the impugned order.

Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran

Click here to view judgement

1 Nov

The Karnataka High Court has affirmed that unaided educational institutions managed by linguistic minority bodies are eligible to receive funding under Section 98 of the Karnataka Education Act.

Prime Legal

Uncategorized # Writ Petition, #appeal, #Karnataka High Court, #writ, #writpetition

Title: Rajarajeshwari Dental College and Hospital and Dr Sanjay Murgod

Decided on: 12^th, OCTOBER 2023

Writ C No. – 580 OF 2023 (S-RES)

CORAM: The Hon’ble Mr Prasanna B. Varale, Chief Justice and The Hon’ble Mr Justice Krishna S Dixit

INTRODUCTION

A legal dispute concerning the applicability of Section 98 of the Karnataka Education Act to unaided educational institutions run by linguistic minority organizations was brought before the Karnataka High Court in Bengaluru. The court’s ruling on this issue and its consequences for these institutions is outlined in its judgment, which was released on October 12, 2023.

FACTS OF THE CASE

A disagreement exists in this case between Dr. Sanjay Murgod and Rajarajeshwari Dental College. A single judge ruled that Dr. Murgod’s termination notice was invalid and ordered his reinstatement with back pay. In its appeal, Rajarajeshwari Dental College claimed that unaided educational institutions managed by linguistic minority bodies were exempt from Section 98 of the Karnataka Education Act. The court dismissed the appeal after ruling that Section 98 applied to these kinds of institutions.

COURTS ANALYSIS AND DECISION

According to the Karnataka High Court, unaided educational institutions managed by linguistic minority organizations are subject to Section 98 of the Karnataka Education Act. The Rajarajeshwari Dental College’s appeal was denied by the court, which upheld the section’s application to all employees of educational institutions in order to safeguard their employment security and working conditions. The significance of defending workers’ interests in the education sector is emphasized by this ruling.

Written by- Kusuma R

Karnataka Hc 1

1 2 3 … 7