Documentary Evidence

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: Dinesh Kumar Singh, J. dismissed the revision petition on the ground that the impugned order did not suffer from any infirmity.

In the instant case, the Basic Education Officer had opened an account by the name of Akhilesh Singh, the Principal of Maharana Pratap Junior High School in which scholarship amount was withdrawn. It was found in the FIR. that the name of the Principal was forged; rather the photo of Gopal Singh was affixed on the said account. Further, it was found that the school wasn’t in existence. The revisionist was found prima facie liable for the misappropriation of scholarship funds and also for causing loss of records.

The issue was whether the impugned order was rightly dismissed by the Special Judge or does it require any interference by the court in revision jurisdiction.

Saroj Kumar Dubey, arguing on behalf of the revisionist contended that no offence was made out on the basis of documentary evidence. It was required to get a valid prosecution sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act for prosecuting a public servant. It was argued that the revisionist having retired from service, there was no requirement of prosecution sanction under Section 19 of the said act.

Relying on the Judgment of Chittaranjan Das v. State of Orissa, (2011) 7 SCC 167, the Court held that in case a public servant had retired, there was no necessity to seek prior sanction for prosecuting him. The impugned order didn’t suffer from any infirmity.[Shyam Bihari Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Revision No. 3155 of 2019, decided on 11-11-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Gujarat High Court: Dr A.P. Thaker, J. declined the prayer for the grant of interim relief after considering the averments and documentary evidence on record.

The petitioner had challenged an order passed by the respondent which blacklisted the petitioner due to which it was unable for him to take part in a new tender which was floated by the respondent. Dixa Pandya, advocate for the petitioner also stated that the blacklisting is hampering the petitioner’s reputation.

Per Contra Dr Venugopal Patel submitted that the petitioner was unable to fulfill the earlier responsibilities and the petitioner was not able to give any reasonable explanation for the same in addition to which a show-cause notice was also served to the petitioner which does not give him a chance to put up his case.

The Court while dismissing the application for the grant of interim relief clarified that the respondent had floated the necessary guidelines with certain conditions to the petitioners which were accepted by the petitioner and the petitioner was given proper opportunity in every case to be heard the petitioner, however, can move to respondent for reconsideration for the decision of blacklisting. [Bindiya Enterprise v. State of Gujarat, 2019 SCC OnLine Guj 1, Order dated 01-01-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madhya Pradesh High Court: G.S. Ahluwalia, J. dismissed a writ due to lack of merit, where the petitioner challenged the advertisement by which the applications had been invited from Private Operators for the operation of Lok Seva Kendra under State Agency for Public Service, Madhya Pradesh.

Learned counsel for the petitioner Chandresh Kumar Shrivastava, submitted that the petitioner was awarded a contract for operating Lok Seva Kendra for three years and it was renewed subsequently. Clause 11 of the Agreement provided for renewal of contract, according to which, if the operator is interested to continue his right to operate Lok Seva Kendra, then he had to make an application for extension of the contract for a further period of three years within six months in advance to the expiry of the contract. He contended that, he made an application for renewal of his contract, however, without deciding the application, the respondents had issued an advertisement and ignored the request of the petitioner.

The learned counsel for the State, F.A. Shah submitted that the petitioner had not filed the acknowledgment of the receipt of the said application. The counsel highlighted that in case, if there was any dispute, the petitioner had an efficacious and alternative remedy under the Agreement and the petitioner had approached this Court without availing Arbitration Clause, which should have been the first recourse.

The petitioner contended that since the dispute was not raised because of violation of any contractual obligation either by the respondents or by the petitioner, therefore, the Arbitration Clause would not apply. It was further submitted that the State Government had issued instructions on with regard to the renewal of the contract and in the letter by the State the period of the agreement was extended in view of the ongoing election process. However, the State directed by a subsequent letter that the building should be handed over to the successor. Accordingly, it is clear that the agreement, which was executed in favour of the petitioner, would be prematurely terminated.

The Court observed that, the petitioner had not filed any acknowledgment or receipt to prove that petitioner had exercised his right of renewal before the State. Further, it stated that the case of the petitioner is one which qualified for alternative Redressal Forum as the petitioner sought enforcement of Clause 11 of the Agreement thus, the petitioner claimed that Clause 11 of the Agreement had been violated by the respondents. The Court held that, the efficacious remedy for the petitioner is under Clause 15 i.e availability of Arbitration Clause. Hence, the case of the petitioner was dismissed accordingly.[Shivkant Shrivastava v. State of M.P., 2019 SCC OnLine MP 943, decided on 30-05-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jammu and Kashmir High Court: The Bench of Ali Mohammad Magrey, J., allowed the writ petition filed seeking a direction to the respondents to transfer the petitioner from District Kupwara to District Srinagar on health grounds.

The petitioner claimed to be working as a teacher and was posted at Upper Primary School, Kabamarg, zone Trehgam. She submitted that she was suffering from acute ailment relating to her Bone-Degeneration for which she needed proper medical care round the clock in a State Hospital at Srinagar. It was further submitted that on the advice of the doctors, the petitioner had undergone physiotherapy exercise on a daily basis from a reputed Government hospital, which facility was only available in Srinagar because no such hospital was available in District Kupwara. She also contended that on the advice of the doctors at Apollo Hospital, Delhi, she was asked to take injections which were not available in District Hospital, Kupwara, and instead, they are only available in Srinagar. The petitioner in this regard had placed on record the medical prescriptions and advice regarding her ailment and treatment thereto.

The Court while allowing the petition stated that transfer/ posting is an exigency of service and is solely within the powers of the Government authorities. Ordinarily, the Courts should not interfere with the policy of the Government directing posting/ transfers of the Government employees, but in exceptional cases, where the transfer/posting is made by an incompetent authority or is against the rules or is a result of malafides, the Courts can interfere. It further stated that the Government employee suffering from any hardship on account of his/her transfer/posting, should approach the authorities concerned for seeking redressal of his/her grievances as the Courts cannot issue any mandamus directing the authorities to transfer/posting of a Government employee. It is solely for the authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner on the strength of the documentary evidence, including the medical prescriptions/advice, available with the petitioner for such transfer.

In the above situation, the Court felt satisfied in disposing of the petition with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders concerning her transfer. [Ishrat Dilshad v. State of J&K, 2019 SCC OnLine J&K 223, Order dated 08-03-2019]