Coordinate Bench order served as binding precedent to allow the present writ petition and quash demands created without opportunity of hearing regarding irregular purchases.
The writ petition is allowed in terms of a coordinate bench order; impugned demands are quashed and matter remanded to competent authority after opportunity of hearing.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ No. 1091/2015
Smt. Rupi Devi Bheel And Ors
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Anr.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Chotia. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Patel, AGC.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Order
03/10/2018
Learned counsel representing the parties state that the controversy involved at hand is squarely covered by the order dated 08.02.2016 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in bunch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13949/2015 (Har Govind Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and that the present writ petition may also be decided in the same light. The operative part of the above referred order is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference:
“15. Coming to the contention raised on behalf of the respondents regarding the purchases being made by the petitioners without the availability of the grant from the Central Government, this court is of the opinion that the said contention is not required to be gone into by this Court inasmuch as, bare perusal of the impugned orders creating the demand, reveal that the recovery sought to be effected against the petitioners is not based on any such violation. It is settled law that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be permitted to be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or
(2 of 3)
[CW-1091/2015]
otherwise. (vide Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors.,AIR 1978 SC, 851).
(3 of 3) [CW-1091/2015]
In view of the admitted position that the controversy raised in this writ petition is identical to that of the above referred case, the instant writ petition is allowed in the same terms. Stay application is disposed of.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)J.
Tikam/117
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the present writ petition should be allowed on identical principles to a coordinate bench order.
Whether the impugned demand created against petitioners without an opportunity of hearing deserves to be quashed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Har Govind Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Followed¶12
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13949/2015 (Har Govind Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)
Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors.Referred¶16
Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors., AIR 1978 SC, 851 · Who else cites this
Surendra Nath PandeyDistinguished¶17
Surendra Nath Pandey's case
Smt. Rupi Devi Bheel
State
Sandeep Mehta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
