The High Court held that the writ petition was premature as the petitioners failed to exhaust the statutory remedy of appeal before approaching this Court under Article 226.
Petition dismissed with liberty to prefer an appeal within eight weeks to the Appellate Authority.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6271 of 2021
======================================================
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kiran Sinha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sushil Kumar (Gp22)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 07-02-2022
The matter is heard via video conferencing due to
circumstances prevailing on account of the COVID-19 pandemic.
following relief/reliefs:
“That this petition is being filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of impugned order issued vide memo No. 3579, dated – 27.04.2017 issued by Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies Bihar, Patna whereby
Patna High Court CWJC No.6271 of 2021 dt.07-02-2022 2/3
and whereunder annual increments of the petitioners have been withheld until passing of examination and further ordered for recovery of annual increment take w.e.f. 01/07.2007 and further he may be directed to provide annual increment w.e.f. 01.07.2007.”
petitioners have rushed to this Court. Thus, the present petition is premature in the light of Apex Court decision in the case of State
of Jammu and Kashmir V/s. R.K.Zalpuri and others reported in AIR 2016 SC 3006 paragraph-20 which is held as under:
“20. Having stated thus, it is useful to refer to a passage form City and Industrial Development Corporation V/s.Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and others {(2009) 1 SCC 168}, wherein this Court while dwelling upon jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, has expressed thus:-
“The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 is duty-bound to consider whether:
(a) Adjudication of writ petition involves any complex and disputed question of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved;
(b) The petition reveals all material facts;
(c) The petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute;
(d) Person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches;
(e) Ex facie barred by any laws of limitation;
(f) Grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid law; and host of other factor s”
Underline Emphasized
Patna High Court CWJC No.6271 of 2021 dt.07-02-2022 3/3
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
GAURAV S./-
| AFR/NAFR |
|---|
| CAV DATE |
| Uploading Date |
| Transmission Date |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition for quashing an order withholding annual increments is maintainable when the statutory remedy of appeal has not been exhausted.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Jammu and Kashmir V/s. R.K.Zalpuri and othersReferred¶30
State of Jammu and Kashmir V/s. R.K.Zalpuri and others, AIR 2016 SC 3006 · Who else cites this
City and Industrial Development Corporation V/s.Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and othersReferred¶32
City and Industrial Development Corporation V/s.Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and others, (2009) 1 SCC 168 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Gopal Prasad and others
The State of Bihar
P. B. Bajanthri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
P. B. Bajanthri
Parties & counsel
