Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DISTRICT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR & ANOTHER versus PUBLIC SERVICE TRIBUNAL & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


District Assistant Registrar & Another v. Public Service Tribunal & Others - WRIT - A No. 27357 of 1999 [2007] RD-AH 9009 (11 May 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 10

. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27357 of 1999

District Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.P. Ghazipur and another  

Vs.

Public Service Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow & others

Chandra Dixit and others

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.

 Heard  Sri S.K. Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners.

This petition has been filed by District Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U.P. Ghazipur and Assistant Development Officer, Co-operative Barachawar, District Ghazipur against an order of  U.P. Public Services Tribunal which was passed on a claim petition filed by respondent no.2, Ram Bilas Ram whereby the claim petition filed by him has been allowed. In the said claim petition, State of U.P. through Secretary, Cooperative Societies was impleaded as one of the respondents whereas Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ghazipur was second respondent and Assistant Development Officer, Co-operative Barachawar, Ghazipur was the third respondent. Apparently, if any person could be said to be aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, would be the State of U.P. and not District Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies. The  Assistant Registrar of the District Cooperative Societies  has ventured to file this petition without there being any instruction or direction from the State Government. At least nothing has been placed on record. This clearly shows his personal involvement in the dispute. The same thing is with regard to petitioner no.2. The petitioners have filed the writ petition through a private counsel and not through Standing Counsel.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed for overstepping the jurisdiction by the petitioners. We impose heavy cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) which would be shared equally by the petitioners. The cost shall be recovered from the personnel holding office of petitioners no.1 and 2 at the relevant time when the petition was filed. In case the cost is not deposited within one month from today, the same shall be recovered by the District Magistrate, concerned  as arrears of land  revenue.  The Registry is directed to deposit 50% of  the costs so recovered to deposit Allahabad High Court Legal Authority Cell and the remaining 50% with Allahabad High Court Mediation Centre.

Dt/-11.5.2007

Akn


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.