Dismissed

C/M Shree Sankeertan Bramcharyashram Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya v. State of U P and 2 Others

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2019WRIC/22455/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition regarding the refusal to attest the petitioner's signatures as an institution manager. It held that a post decisional hearing would serve the ends of justice. The petition was disposed of finally, and the respondent authority was directed to afford the petitioner a representation opportunity.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was finally disposed of. A post decisional hearing is directed. Petitioner to submit representation with documents; Respondent to issue a reasoned order within three months.

C/M Shree Sankeertan Bramcharyashram Sanskrit… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22455 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- C/M Shree Sankeertan Bramcharyashram Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Lakshman Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

The order dated 20.06.2019 passed by the respondent No.3District Inspector of Schools, Prayagraj has been assailed in the instant writ petition. The order dated 20.06.2019 declined to attest the signatures of the petitioner as Manager of the aforesaid Institution. The order dated 20.06.2019 records that the signatures of the petitioner, have not been attested by Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi. As such, the claim of the election set up by the petitioner has not been approved till date.

¶6

Sri Lakshman Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 20.06.2019 was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶7

Sri Lakshman Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the facts of the case, a post decisional hearing in the instant case would subserve the ends of justice.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel does not have any serious objection to the aforesaid submissions.

¶9

No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petition pending. With consent of the parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of.

¶10

It is well settled that the principles of natural justice are not cast in any strait jacket formula. The requirements of natural justice are adapted to the facts of the case to subserve the ends of justice. In the evolution of the law of natural justice, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has applied the concept of post decisional hearing in appropriate cases. In the case of Dharampal Satyapal Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and others , reported at (2015) 8 SCC 519 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:

¶11

"38. But that is not the end of the matter. While the law on the principle of audi alteram partem has progressed in the manner mentioned above, at the same time, the Courts have also repeatedly remarked that the principles of natural justice are very flexible

¶12

principles. They cannot be applied in any straight-jacket formula. It all depends upon the kind of functions performed and to the extent to which a person is likely to be affected. For this reason, certain exceptions to the aforesaid principles have been invoked under certain circumstances. For example, the Courts have held that it would be sufficient to allow a person to make a representation and oral hearing may not be necessary in all cases, though in some matters, depending upon the nature of the case, not only fullfledged oral hearing but even cross-examination of witnesses is treated as necessary concomitant of the principles of natural justice. Likewise, in service matters relating to major punishment by way of disciplinary action, the requirement is very strict and fullfledged opportunity is envisaged under the statutory rules as well. On the other hand, in those cases where there is an admission of charge, even when no such formal inquiry is held, the punishment based on such admission is upheld. It is for this reason, in certain circumstances, even post-decisional hearing is held to be permissible. Further, the Courts have held that under certain circumstances principles of natural justice may even be excluded by reason of diverse factors like time, place, the apprehended danger and so on."

¶13

In view of the facts of the case and position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a post decisional hearing would subserve the interest of justice. The matter is remitted to the respondent no.3-District Inspector of Schools, Prayagraj.

¶14

A writ of mandamus is issued commanding the respondent no.3-District Inspector of Schools, Prayagraj to execute the following directions:

¶15

I. The petitioner shall submit a representation to the respondent no.3-District Inspector of Schools, Prayagraj for attestation of his signatures along with the documents in support of his claim.

¶16

II. It is open to the petitioner to raise any objection before the respondent no.3-District Inspector of Schools, Prayagraj including the issue of jurisdiction.

¶17

III. The respondent no.3-District Inspector of Schools, Prayagraj shall pass a reasoned and speaking order, preferably, within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, along with a copy of the representation.

¶18

V. The order dated 20.06.2019 passed by the respondent no.3District Inspector of Schools, Prayagraj shall abide by the final orders passed by the respondent no.3-District Inspector of Schools, Prayagraj in pursuance of this order.

¶19

It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the veracity of the assertions made in the writ petition nor has the claim of the petitioner been judged on merits. It is for the competent authority to do so after independent application of mind.

¶20

The writ petition is disposed of finally.

¶21

Order Date :- 12.7.2019/Ashish Tripathi

C/M Shree Sankeertan Bramcharyashram Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya v. State of U P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C/M Shree Sankeertan Bramcharyashram Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya v. State of U P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C/M Sri Ajeet Nath Jain Inter College and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

C/M Nageshwar Pandey Degree College and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Ram Kali Iqbal Bahadur Pvt. Industrial Training Institute and Another Vs Union of India and 7 Others

Ram Badan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nihal Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Arya Pandey(Minor) Vs State of U P and 4 Others