evolawyer/inlegalbert-sc-ner-silver huggingface dataset:
MR. ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS. v

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

SEPTEMBER 9, 1994

[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 32 and 136. Order passed under Article 136 attaining finality-Writ filed subsequent thereta-Held not maintainable.

This petition has been filed by the petitioners subsequent to the order passed by this Court under Article 136 became final.

Dismissing the petition, this Court

HELD : The writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution is not maintainable. It is sheer abuse of the process of the Court and so D dismissed with costs of rupees thirty thousand, whch the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee is entitled to recover from the petitioners. (338-D]

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 516 of 1994. .

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)

Mrs. Shyamla Pappu, and Ashok K. Mahajan for the Petitioners.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

The litigation ultimately ended in Civil Appeal Nos. 668-669of1988 dated August, 16, 1993 and the matters were disposed of by a Bench of three Judges of this Court with the following directions :

"We, therefore, partly allow the appeal of Delhi Development Authority in so far as these ten members are concerned and direct G that on their depositing the amount in respect of plots calculated at 5% of Rs. 19,759. per square meter the Delhi Development Authority will allot them the plots at or near about the site in question. As the total amount to be paid would depend on the area of the plot, would direct the Delhi Development Authority to H 337

~38

SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

communicate the amount which each 9f these ten members will be required to pay at the above rate and on receipt to such communication the said ten members will make the payment within one such month failing which they will forfeit their right to claim the plots allotted to them. Be it noted that no extension of time will be given because this is the third indulgence given to them.

The appeals will stand disposed of as above with no order as to costs."

Now the writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution has been filed contend, that contrary to the orders and also the letter was issued on July C 1, 1994 directing the appellants, to pay excess amounts and that, therefore, they should be protected by mandamus under Article 32 of the Constitution. The order passed by this Court exercising power under Article 136, became final and writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is not maintainable. The writ petition is sheer abuse of the process of the Court and so dismissed with costs of rupees. thirty thousand, which the Supreme D Court Legal Aid Committee is entitled to recover from the petitioners.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

T.N.A.

/ Petition dismissed. -
UNION OF INDIA v. x__

HARNAM SINGH

JANUARY 13, 1994

[M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, CJI AND AS. ANAND, J.] :

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 : Sections 5(1)(2) and (6). "-- Tribunal--Power of Single Member to dispose of cases-Observations in judgment under review-Deletion of.

I c Dismissing the Review Petition Filed against the decision in Union of India v. Hamam Singh, (1993) 2 S.C.C. 162, this Court

HELD : The observation in the judgment under review to the effect that "ordinarily keeping in view the Judgment of this Court in Amulya D Chandra Kalita's case ...... is under consideration ...... " is deleted as ii is susceptible or aQ interpretation denuding the efficacy or the judgment in Dr. Mahabal Ram's case. To which reference was not made at the hearing _ _.( or the main appeal. (119-B, DJ

Amulya Chandra Kalita v. Union of India, (1991) 1 S.C.C. 181 and E Dr. Mahabal Ram v. Indian Council of Agricultural Research and Ors., (1991) 2 L.L.J. 112, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Review Petition (C) No. 1384 of 1993.

F IN

- --(

Civil Appeal No. 502 of 1993.

From the Judgment and Order dated 29.5.92 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A.No. 1252 of 1992.

G Mrs. Shyamala Pappu and J.D. Jain for the Petitioner.

The following Order of the Court was delivered : }- '

1. We have heard Smt. Shyamla Pappu, learned senior counsel for H the respondent who has preferred this review petition. On a consideration

U.0.1. v. HARNAM SINGH 119

of the matter, we find that the grounds raised in support of the review, do A not justify our interference with the earlier order 9th February, 1993.

2. However, there is one other aspect which might bear consideration. In the course of the order, it was observed :

"Ordinarily, keeping in view the judgment of this Cpurt in Amulya Chandra Kalita's case [supra], we should have remanded the case to the Tr_ibunal for a fresh posal because of the fact that the order of the Tribunal was rendered by only one member or to have awaited the decision of some cases pending in this Court in which the validity of the order passed by single member of the tribunal is under consideration ...... "

3. This statement might be susceptible of an interpretation that it denudes the efficacy of the pronouncement of this Court in 1991 (2) LLJ

112 : Dr. Mahabal Ram v. Indian Council of Agricultural Research and Others to which reference was not made at the hearing of the main appeal. D It is, therefore, appropriate that the observations, exce:q>ted above, are deleted from the order. They are, accordingly, deleted, leist there be scope for any such misunderstanding.

T.NA.

Review petition dismissed.
FRICK INDIA LTD. AND ANR. v.

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

MAY 13, 1994

[M.N. VENKATACHALIAH,.CJ., A.M. AHMADI, J.S. VERMA,

G.N. RAY AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.]

Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973/Central .Sales Tax Act, 1956 : Section 6,25(5}-Notice dated 12.2.1986-Purchase tcw-Levy of interest on C additional amount found due-Held: the amount of interest collected from ·

assessees to be refunded with interest at 12% per annum.

The petitioners filed the writ petitions challenging the levy of interest on the purchase tax under the Haryana General . Sales Tax Act, 1973.

Allowing the writ petition In view of the decision In J.K. Synthetics case*, this Court.

HELD : The amount of Interest levied on collected from the petitioners under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 as well as the E Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 shall be refunded to the petitioners with Interest at 12% per annum from the date of actual recovery till refund.

[135-BCJ

*J.K Synthetics Ltd. v. The Commercial Taxes Officer, [1994) 4 SCC 277, applied.

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ petition (C) No. 1235 of 1986. .

Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

G Harish N. Salve Ashok Sen, Ravider Narain, Ms.Amrita Mitra, D.N.

Misra, for JBD & Co., Ms. Meenakshi Grover, Ms. Poonarn Madan, Krishna Kumar, Bhaskar Raj Pradhan for Khaitan & Co., A.P. Dhamija, S. Atreya, N.D.B. Raju, S.K. Jain, Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Ms Ayesa Khatri, Ms. Indu Malhotra, Ms. Kusum Chaudhary and Aruneshwar Gupta for the H appearing parties. ·

FRICKINDIALTD. v. STATEOFHARYANA[AHMADl, l.] 135

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

AHMADI, J. In view of the decision rendered by the Constitution Benchin/.K Synthetics Ltd v. The Commercial Taxes Officer(CivilAppeal Nos. 3414-16/82, decided on May 9, 1994), since the relevant provisions of

the Haryana General Sales Tax Act are analogous to those of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, this plllitiqn must also succeed. We, therefore, allow this B petition and direct that the amount of interest levied and collected from the petitioners under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act as well as the Central Sales Tax Act shall be refunded to the petitioners within three months from today with interest at 12% per annum from the date of actual recovery till refund. There will, however, be no order as to costs in the facts C and circumstances of the case. CMP will also stand disposed of.

R.P.

Petition allowed.
CHAIRMAN, PURI GRAMYA BANK AND ANR. v.

ANANDA CHANDRA DAS AND ORS.

SEPTEMBER 12, 1994

(K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.]

Service Law-Direct recruitment-Preparation of panel on the basis of rank secured-Reckoning of seniorit)-Should be as per rank and not on the basis of date of repo1ting to duty . .

In a sdection made by direct recruitment, the Selection Board C prepared the merit list on the basis of ranking secured at the time of selection. On the question whether the seniority of the employee should be reckoned on the basis of date of his joining the duty or according to the ranking given by the Board : -, D Disposing of the appeal, this Court

HELD : It is settled law that if more candidates than one are ' selected, the seniority is as per ranking of the direct recruits subject to the adjustment of the candidates selected on applying the rule of reservation and the roster. Mere fortuteous chance of reporting to duty earlier would E not alter the ranking given by the Selection Board and the arranged one as per roster. The High Court erred in its conclusion that the seniority shall be determined on the basis of the joining reports given by the condidates and length of service on its basis. [ 490-C-D]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6308 of F 1994.

From the Judgment and Order dated 4.3.92 of the Orissa High Court in O.J.C. No. 1007 of 1988.

R. Mohan for the Appellants.

The follo'\Viflg Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted.

This appeal arises from the Judgment of the High Court of Orissa in H 489

SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A . O.J.C. No. 1007/88, dated March 4, 1992. The respondent and others were selected by direct recruitment as managers of Rural Bank. His rank was No. 9 in the merit list. He was directed to be given seniority on the basis of the date of his reporting to duty. It is reported that the first respondent is dead. The only question in this case is that what shall be the ranking B among the direct recruits? Is it the qate on which they joined duty or according to the ranking given by the selection board? On comparative evaluation of the respective merits of the candidates for direct recruitment, the Board has prepared the merit list on the basis of the ranking secured at the time of the selection. It is settled law that if more than one are selected, the seniority is as per ranking of the direct recruits subject to the C adjustment of the candidates selected on applying the rule of reservation and the roster. By mere fortuteous chance of reporting to duty earlier would not alter the ranking given by the Selection Board and the arranged one as per roster. The High Court, is, therefore, wholly wrong in its conclusion that the seniority shall be determined on the basis of the joining D reports given by the candidates selected for appointment by direct recruitment and length of service on its basis. The view, therefore, is wrong.

However, we need not interfere with the order, .since the first respondent has died.

The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

T.N.A.

Appeal disposed of.
PAVAI AMMAL VAIYAPURI EDUCATION TRUST

GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

SEPTEMBER 21, 1994

[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND SUHAS C. SEN, JJ.)

...

P.A V. EDUCATION TRUSTv. GOVT. OFT.N. 739

imposed, it shall be open to any of them to bring the same to A the notice of this Court. [740-B]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: S.L.P. (C) Nos. 14416-18 of 1994 .

From the_ Judgment and Order dated 3.8.94 of the Madras High B Court in W.P. No. 10670, 10707 & 10714 of 1994.

K.K. Venugopal, K.V. Vihswanathan and K.V. Vijaykumar for the Petitioners.

V.R.Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, A Mariarputham and Ms.

C Aruna Mathur, for Aruputham Aruna & Co. for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondents, we are of the opinion D that the question of applicability of the Scheme in Unnikrishnan, J.P .. & Ors.

v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., [1993) 1 S.C.C. 645 to the.petitioner-college requires further consideration for which purpose we are posting the Special Leave Petitions for final hearing in November, 1994. We direct that pending further orders status quo shall continue for the current year, i.e., E 1994-95.

It is, however, directed that the college shall admit students strictly in the order of merit from among those applying to it for admission. The merit shall be determined only and exclusively on the basis of marks obtained in the qualifying examination. This obligation, in our opinion, is F inherent in the permission for establishment granted by the Bar Council of India and the affiliation granted by the university. The very fact that the university is a<lmitting this college, a private body, to its privileges means that the private body must subject itself to the discipline inherent in such affiliation. It is unreasonable to presume that fairness is not inherent in the G grant of permission to establish and more so in the grant of affiliation.

Hence, the above direction.

The petitioner-college shall prepare a list of candidates applying to it for admission alongwith the marks obtained by them in the qualifying examination as well as a list of the candidates selected by it for admission H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A along with the marks obtained by them in the qualifying examination. Both the said lists shall be submitted within ten days of the finalisation of the admissions to the Bar Council of India, to the Madras University and to the Government of Madras. It shall be open to these authorities to verify the correctness of the said list and if they find that there has been any

B departure from the direction imposed hereinabove, it shall be open to any them to bring the same to the notice of this Court.

Liberty to mention.

The Special Leave Petition shall be posted for final hearing on November 11, 1994,

G.N.

Petition Pending.

,,..

...