Committee Committee ... v. Sushil Kumar Sharma ..., Allahabad High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

S.A No. 378 of 1992

Judges

M.K Mukherjee, C.J
S.P Srivastava, J.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the committee of management to issue an appointment letter appointing him as a Lecturer from 20-12-1991 and for payment of salary from that date onward. While the writ petition was pending, a learned Single Judge granted the petitioner the main relief sought by directing the appellant to appoint the petitioner as Lecturer in the Commerce Department and to pay his salary regularly. The Committee of Management challenged this order by filing a special appeal seeking its reversal.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether a relief sought at the interlocutory stage, which is available at the disposal of the matter, can be granted without any special reason indicated in clear terms.
Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued as a matter of course to enforce a demand that is discretionary and not a clear, unqualified, and specified legal public duty.
Whether the absence of a counter affidavit justifies issuance of a writ of mandamus or similar interim relief.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
U.P Junior Doctors' Action Committee v. Dr. Sheetal Nandwani	At interlocutory stage, relief which is available should not be granted unless special reasons are clearly indicated.	The court relied on this rule to hold that the impugned order granting relief at interlocutory stage without special reasons was improper and could not be approved.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court emphasized that at the interlocutory stage, relief which is available in the main matter should not be granted unless there are special reasons clearly stated. It reiterated that a writ of mandamus can only be issued where there is a clear, unqualified, and specified legal public duty that has been refused. Such writs are discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of right or issued routinely. The Court further noted that absence of a counter affidavit does not justify issuance of such a writ. Upon review, the Court found no special reason in the impugned order to depart from these well-established rules of practice and procedure. Consequently, the Court concluded that the impugned judgment could not be approved and was set aside.

Holding and Implications

The special appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside.

The petitioner is at liberty to move again for consideration of the interim matter. No order as to costs was made. This decision directly affects the parties by reversing the interlocutory relief granted earlier but does not establish any new precedent.

Show full summary ...

Committee Committee Of Management S.S.U (Post Graduate) College Hapur v. Sushil Kumar Sharma And Others

S.P Srivastava, J.:— This special appeal is directed against a pre-hearing judgment of a learned Single Judge, where under while keeping the writ petition pending, the petitioner has been granted the main relief sought for by him.

2. It may be noticed that in the writ petition giving rise to this appeal, the petitioner had prayed for a direction to the committee of management for issuing an appointment letter, appointing the petitioner on the post of Lecturer from 20-12-1991 and for a further direction for the payment of salary to him from the said date and continue the payment till the petitioner continued to hold the post. A learned single Judge, while disposing of the stay application passed the impugned order directing the appellant to appoint the petitioner as Lecturer in Commerce Department of the College run and managed by it, within one month and pay him his salary regularly.

3. Beging aggrieved, the Committee of Management, the appellant has now come up in Appeal seeking reversal of the impugned order.

4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

5. As observed by the Apex Court in its decision in the case of U.P Junior Doctors' Action Committee v. Dr. Sheetal Nandwani' it's a well known rule of practice and procedure that at interlocutory stage a relief which is asked for and is available at the disposal of the matter is not granted unless there is any special reason to be indicated in clear terms.

6. It can not be lost sight of that a writ of mandamus which is issued to command and execute, only where the legal public duty is clear unqualified and specified can be truly claimed by a party to enforce a demand met by refusal, on the establishment of such a case and though discretionery should not be issued as a matter of course at it can not be claimed as a right.

7. Further just like a concession cannot be enforced by issuing a writ of Mandamus the mere absence of a counter affidavit cannot furnish a justifiable ground for the issuance of such a writ, order or direction.

8. We have searched in vain for any special reason given in the impugned order disclosing any justifiable ground for departing with the known rule of practice and procedure as observed by the Apex Court. We have no hesitation in concluding that it is impossible to approve the impugned judgment.

9. In the result, this special appeal succeeds and allowing the same, we set aside the impugned judgment. It is made clear that the respondent No. 1, the petitioner, will be at liberty to move again for consideration of the interim matter. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

10. Appeal allowed.

Committee Committee ... v. Sushil Kumar Sharma ...