Remanded

State Of Uttarakhand and Another v. Pooran Chandra Pathak and Others

Uttarakhand HC8 May 2019SPA/702/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In special appeal, the High Court of Uttarakhand modified the impugned order of the Single Judge. Instead of quashing the order rejecting the claim for a Rajya Andolankari certificate, the Court allowed quashing only for the violation of natural justice, directing the District Magistrate to reconsider the reply submitted by petitioners before passing a reasoned order.

What did the court decide?

quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter to the District Magistrate to consider the reply and pass a reasoned order.

State Of Uttarakhand and Another Vs Pooran… — Service and Employment | Uttarakhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Special Appeal No. 702 of 2018

¶3

State of Uttarakhand & others ...Appellants

¶4

Vs.

¶5

Pooran Chandra Pathak & others ...Respondent

¶6

Present:

¶7

Mrs. Prabha Naithani, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand-appellants. Mr. A.D. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners.

¶8

Dated: 08^th May, 2019

¶9

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

¶10

Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. (Oral)

¶11

Heard Mrs. Prabha Naithani, learned Brief Holder appearing for the State Government-appellants and Sri A.D. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners, and, with their consent, the Special Appeal is disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶12

The respondents herein invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 30.11.2013 issued by the second respondent; to quash the notice dated 30.09.2010 issued by the second respondent; and to issue a mandamus commanding the respondents to issue the certificate, of Rajay Andolankari to the petitioners, in terms of the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Almora that they were arrested, under Sections 107, 116 & 151 of Cr.P.C, on 14.08.1994 in the same manner as it was issued to a few others vide Government Orders dated 11.08.2004 and 07.04.2006 etc.

¶13

¶14

The respondents-writ petitioners had filed WPMS No. 2442 of 2011 seeking a mandamus commanding the respondents to issue an identity card to the petitioner as being a Rajya Andolankari in terms of the Government Order dated 22.10.2018. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 26.09.2013 directing the second respondent to decide the matter within twelve weeks. The respondent-writ petitioners’ claim was rejected by order dated 30.11.2013. The petitioner again invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by way of WPMS No. 496 of 2014 seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

¶15

In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge observed that the respondents-writ petitioners’ claim was that they had participated in the movement for creation of a separate State of Uttarakhand; they were arrested by the police, and necessary certificates were issued to them; show cause notices were issued to the petitioners by the District Magistrate; they had filed a detailed reply along with documentary proof; the District Magistrate had, without looking into their reply, rejected the respondents-writ petitioners’ claim; once the petitioners were permitted to file a reply to the show cause notice, the same ought to have been considered; there was violation of principles of natural justice; the petitioner had not been treated in a just and fair manner; and there was arbitrariness in the action of the District Magistrate. The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order was quashed and set-aside. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal.

¶16

Mrs. Prabha Naithani, learned Brief Holder for the appellants-State, would submit that the respondents-writ petitioners are ineligible to be treated as a Rajya Andolankari,

¶17

¶18

as per the Government order dated 22.10.2008; and all that the learned Single Judge has held, in the order under appeal, is that the earlier order, rejecting the respondents-writ petitioners’ claim, was passed without even taking note of the contents of the reply submitted by the respondents-writ petitioners to the show cause notice.

¶19

Once a notice is issued, calling upon the individuals concerned to show cause, and they submit their reply thereto, the Competent Authority is obligated in law to pass a reasoned order, taking into consideration the contents of the reply submitted to the show cause notice.

¶20

As the learned Single Judge has merely quashed the impugned order for violation of principles of nature justice, and has not granted the appellants liberty to pass an order afresh, suffice it to modify the order under appeal to the limited extent that it is open to the District Magistrate, Bageshwar to consider the reply submitted by the respondents-writ petitioners to the show cause notice; pass a reasoned order dealing with the objections raised by them in their reply; and, thereafter, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶21

The Special Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

¶22

No costs.

¶23

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

¶24

A.kaur/Shiksha

State Of Uttarakhand and Another v. Pooran Chandra Pathak and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Of Uttarakhand and Another v. Pooran Chandra Pathak and Others

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

Bisarat Ali Vs State of Uttarakhand

Pant Kardiya Karnatak Sanskratik Manch Vs State of Uttarakhand

Dinesh Pandey Vs Union Of India and Others

State of Uttarakhand Vs Deepak Naudiyal

State of Uttarakhand Vs Sakshi Bahuguna

State of Uttarakhand Vs Bipin Singh Jayara