Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN versus COLLECTOR, FIROZABAD & ANR.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ashok Kumar Jain v. Collector, Firozabad & anr. - WRIT - C No. 33850 of 1992 [2003] RD-AH 493 (4 December 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. 34

       

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO 33850 Of 1992

Ashok Kumar Jain ----- Petitioner

Versus

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.

4.12.2003

BLY/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.