Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

CHAITANYA NARAIAN versus CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLD. & ORS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Chaitanya Naraian v. Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Alld. & Ors - WRIT - A No. 17700 of 2003 [2003] RD-AH 115 (24 April 2003)

 

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. 38

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 17700 Of 2003

Chaitanya Narain -----           Petitioner

Versus

Central Administrative Tribunal,

Allahabad Bench, Allahabad & ors. -----        Respondents    

    --------------

Hon'ble Dr.B.S.Chauhan,J.

Hon'ble Ghanshyam Dass, J.

This writ petition has been filed against an interlocutory order dated 9.4.2003, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad, by which the learned Tribunal has rejected the application of the petitioner to call for the record from the State Government.

Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that an Application No. 539 of 2002 is pending before the Tribunal wherein large number of issues are involved. As the matter remained pending, the Writ Petition No. 31563 of 2002 was filed before this Court which was disposed of by judgment and order dated 17.2.2003 requesting the learned Tribunal to decide the case expeditiously and the parties were also directed to cooperate with the Tribunal so that the hearing may be concluded. Subsequently, when the matter came up for final hearing an application was filed by the petitioner to summon the entire record of the case, including the proposal of vacancies sent by the State Government to the Public Service Commission; record of the D.P.C. as controversy would be easily decided after assessing the record, and parties would be able to ascertain as to whether some cause of action had arisen in their favour so that they can resort to the legal proceedings.

After hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal rejected the application on the ground that at the time of final hearing if the Tribunal finds it necessary to examine the record it will definitely call for the record and direction would be issued, but application was pre-mature at that stage. More so, the Tribunal referred to the direction given by this Court to decide the matter expeditiously. However on insistence of the learned counsel for the petitioner the matter has been adjourned for 28th April, 2003.

The learned Tribunal has not held that the record is totally irrelevant and it will not be called for. The Tribunal made a clear observation that if at the time of hearing it comes to the conclusion that examination of the original record is necessary, it will definitely call for it. Therefore, we do not find any fault with the order impugned passed by the learned Tribunal and petition is liable to be dismissed solely on this ground.

We find no justification in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that had the record been called for by the Tribunal, the petitioner could have examined the record and find out as to whether the orders passed from time to time or recommendations made by the State had given any cause of action to the petitioner or any order had been passed adversely affecting him and he would challenge the same before the appropriate Government. We are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal should not summon the record so that the petitioner may have a roving enquiry to assess as to whether some order had been passed against him which he should challenge. If any order adversely affecting him has been passed it should have been communicated to him, and if not, it should not be binding on him till communicated. Therefore, the petition seems to have been filed only on misconceived notion.

Petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.

24 .4.2003

AKSI


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.