High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ashok Kumar Jain v. Collector, Firozabad & anr. - WRIT - C No. 33850 of 1992  RD-AH 493 (4 December 2003)
COURT NO. 34
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO 33850 Of 1992
Ashok Kumar Jain ----- Petitioner
Collector, Firozabad & anr. ----- Respondents.
Hon'ble Dr. B.S.Chauhan, J.
Hon'ble M.A.Khan, J.
This writ petition has been filed for quashing the citation dated 10.7.1992 contained in Annex. 4 to the writ petition.
Shri Noorul Huda, learned Standing Counsel has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition against consequential order without challenging the basic order passed by the electricity department asking the District Collector to recover the amount as land revenue. As the basic order in pursuance of which citation has been issued has not been challenged, it is submitted that the writ petition is not entertainable.
Challenging the consequential order without challenging the basic order is also not permissible.
In C.P. Chitranjan Menon & ors. Vs. A. Balakrishnan & ors., AIR 1977 SC 1720, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in absence of challenge to the basic order, subsequent consequential order cannot be challenged.
Similar view has been reiterated in Roshan Lal & ors. Vs. International Airport Authority of India & ors., AIR 1981 SC 597, wherein the petitions were primarily confined to the seniority list and the Apex Court held that challenge to appointment orders could not be entertained because of inordinate delay and in absence of the same, validity of consequential seniority cannot be examined. In such a case, a party is under a legal obligation to challenge the basic order and if and only if the same is found to be wrong, consequential orders may be examined.
In H.M. Pardasani Vs. Union of India & ors., AIR 1985 SC 781, the Apex Court observed that if "petitioners are not able to establish that the determination of their seniority is wrong and they have been prejudiced by such adverse determination, their ultimate claim to promotion would, in deed, not succeed."
Similar view reiterated in Govt of Maharashtra Vs. Deohor's Distillery, (2003) 5 SCC 669.
In view of the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of the considered opinion that petition cannot be entertained for challenging the consequential order without challenging the basic order.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.