The High Court allowed the writ petition holding that the impugned order dated 30 May 2019 could not sustain in light of the decision in Uday Pratap Singh @ Harikesh Vs. State of U.P. And 4 Others.
The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 30 May 2019 is set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 37
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24639 of 2020
Petitioner :- Lakhan Singh Respondent :- State Of U P And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Devendra Singh,Sandeep Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
Learned Standing Counsel fairly concedes that the impugned order dated 30 May 2019 would not sustain in light of the decision rendered by the Court in Writ C No.24902 of 2019 (Uday Pratap Singh @ Harikesh Vs. State of U.P. And 4 Others). In that petition, this Court dealing with the authority and jurisdiction of the District Magistrate to impose surcharge under Section 27 of the 1947 Act, held as under: "On a consideration of the aforesaid conclusions the Court holds: -
A. The expression "Prescribed Authority" referred to in Section 27(2) of the Act means an authority duly designated for that purpose in accordance with the provisions made in Section 2(q)(ii);
B. The State has failed to establish that the District Magistrate was duly notified as the Prescribed Authority in accordance with the mandate of Section 2(q)(ii). In the absence of a notification designating the District Magistrate as the competent authority for the purposes of Section 27(2), the orders of surcharge impugned cannot be sustained;
C. The prescription of a procedure for assessment and recovery of surcharge in Chapter XIII of the Rules and the assignment of a role to the District Magistrate or the District Panchayat Raj Officer thereunder cannot be held to be a compliance of the requirement of Section 27(2);
D. Rules 256-259 as contained in Chapter XIII of the Rules are only an extension of the requirement placed by Section 27(2) to lay in place a structure to "fix the amount of the surcharge according to the procedure that may be prescribed;
E. Section 27(2) neither sanctions nor envisages the designation of a Prescribed Authority by way of a rule or other subordinate legislation;
F. The prima facie findings of wrongdoing arrived at during the course of or in contemplation of an enquiry initiated under Section 95(1)(g) cannot form the foundation for levy or recovery of surcharge."
In light thereof, it is manifest that the impugned order would
not sustain. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30 May 2019 accordingly is set aside.
Order Date :- 4.1.2021 Akbar
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order dated 30 May 2019 could sustain in light of the decision rendered in Writ C No.24902 of 2019.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Uday Pratap Singh @ Harikesh Vs. State of U.P. And 4 OthersRelied on¶6
Writ C No.24902 of 2019 (Uday Pratap Singh @ Harikesh Vs. State of U.P. And 4 Others)
Lakhan Singh
State Of U P
Another
Rajiv Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
