Partly allowed

State of Uttarakhand v. Pradeep Kumar Chauhan

Uttarakhand HC2 May 2019SPA/268/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Appeal by the State against an interim order directing it to finalize the Detailed Project Report for advocates chambers construction within three months. The High Court modified the time limit to two months due to existing delays.

What did the court decide?

Special Appeal disposed; order modified to direct State Government to take a decision on the chambers construction proposal within two months.

State of Uttarakhand Vs Pradeep Kumar Chauhan — Service and Employment | Uttarakhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Special Appeal No. 268 of 2019

¶3

State of Uttarakhand and others ...Appellants Vs. Pradeep Kumar Chauhan and others ...Respondents

¶4

Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhandappellants.

¶5

Mr. B.P. Nautiyal and Mr. V.B.S. Negi, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-writ petitioners 1 to 104.

¶6

Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel for respondent no. 106.

¶7

Mr. Lalit Belwal, learned counsel for the Uttarakhand High Court Bar Association.

¶8

Dated: 02^nd May, 2019

¶9

Coram: Hon’ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. Hon’ble N.S. Dhanik, J.

¶10

Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. (Oral)

¶11

This appeal is preferred against the interlocutory order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3909 of 2018 dated 19.03.2019.

¶12

The respondent-writ petitioners, who are all Advocates practicing in this High Court, had invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to complete construction of new Advocates chambers, pursuant to the process already initiated in this regard, in a time bound manner; a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to constitute a competent committee to review allotment of existing chambers, particularly to find out the vacancy which had occurred in view of Rule 13 of the Chambers Rules, 2008; and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allot chambers to the practicing Advocates of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital.

¶13

¶14

In the interlocutory order under appeal, the learned Single Judge observed that inaction on the part of the State and its agencies, in particular respondents 2, 3 and 4, despite the various communications made by the Registrar General of this Court, the declaration of the Chief Minister sanctioning amounts for construction of the Advocates’ chambers, the land being identified and allotted by the Registrar General of the High Court which was made available for construction of the Advocates’ chambers, and, despite consistent pursuant action, the matter was still pending on account of which Advocates, who are practicing in the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, are forced to work under pathetic and difficult climatic conditions. Considering the background of the communications addressed by the Registrar General, the learned Single Judge issued an interim mandamus commanding respondents 2 to 4 to take an immediate decision on the project, and submit a final affidavit to this Court on 01.04.2019, failing which respondents 2 to 4 would appear in person on the next date fixed for hearing. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is preferred by the State of Uttarakhand and its officers.

¶15

Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the appellants-State of Uttarakhand, would submit that sanction of a Detailed Project Report (for short “DPR”) is linked to release of funds. It is only if budgetary sanction is accorded for construction of the Advocates’ chambers, would the question of approval of the DPR arise; and as funds can only be sanctioned by the State Legislature, and not the Executive, a mandamus to the Executive is wholly unjustified.

¶16

When we asked Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel, to show us the law which obligates the State Government to finalize the DPR only if adequate funds are sanctioned by the Legislature, learned Chief Standing Counsel would fairly submit that, while there may not be any law on this aspect, it has been the practice,

¶17

¶18

for the past several years, to accord approval of the DPR only if funds are sanctioned by the Legislature.

¶19

It is not in dispute that a DPR is a pre-requisite for commencement of construction, and it is only if the detailed project report is approved by the State Government, would the question of commencement of construction arise thereafter. While funds are, undoubtedly, required to be provided for construction, in the absence of any law which obligates the State Government to approve the DPR only on adequate funds being sanctioned by the Legislature, we may not be justified in holding that the learned Single Judge had erred in directing the appellants herein to take an immediate decision on the proposal submitted by the High Court which are, admittedly, pending with the State Government for the past more than two years.

¶20

Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel, would submit that the proposals, submitted by the High Court, are required to be examined in the light of several parameters; and the State Government undertakes to finalize the DPR within three months from today.

¶21

On the other hand Mr. B.P. Nautiyal and Mr. V.B.S. Negi, learned Senior Counsel, would submit that the State Government is not justified in seeking further time of three months, when the matter is pending with the State Government for the past two years; a DPR has already been prepared by the Public Works Department; and a part of the sum of Rs. 50 lacs, sanctioned earlier, has already been spent in this regard.

¶22

We consider it appropriate, in such circumstances, to modify the interlocutory order passed by the learned Single Judge to the limited extent that the State Government shall take an immediate decision, in terms of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, within two months from today.

¶23

¶24

With the aforesaid observations, the Special Appeal is disposed

¶25

of. No costs.

¶26

(N.S. Dhanik, J.) (Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.) 02.05.2019 02.05.2019

¶27

Rahul

State of Uttarakhand v. Pradeep Kumar Chauhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Uttarakhand v. Pradeep Kumar Chauhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Uttarakhand Vs Gopal Singh Bisht

Sanjay Narang Vs Union Of India and Others

Ram Sevak Vs State of Uttarakhand

Director Of Income Tax international Taxation-ii New Delhi Vs M/s Gil Mauritius Holding Ltd.

State of Uttarakhand Vs Ravindra Singh Rawat

State of Uttarakhand Vs Dipti Martolia