Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

“Supreme Court Questions High Court’s Jurisdiction in Declaring Rule Ultra Vires Without Specific Pleading”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On 1 Sep. 2023, the Supreme Court of India found fault with the High Court of Orissa for declaring a rule ultra vires (beyond its legal power or authority) when the specific pleadings to challenge it were not present.

The case, Union of India & Others vs. Manjurani Routray & Others, revolves around the promotion of Manjurani Routray, a Principal System Analyst (Scientist D) in the National Informatics Centre, Cuttack. She challenged her non-promotion to the post of ‘Scientist E,’ alleging that her juniors were promoted instead.

In  judgment, Justice J.K. Maheshwari observed, “In the given facts, there was no occasion for the High Court to declare Rule 4(b) as ultra vires.” This remark was in light of the fact that Routray did not specifically challenge the vires of Rule 4(b) either before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) or in her subsequent writ petition before the High Court.

The High Court, in its earlier judgment, declared Rule-4(b) of the Ministry of Information Technology (Insitu promotion under Flexible Complementing Scheme) Rules, 1998, invalid in law. This was despite Routray never explicitly challenging the legality of Rule 4(b).

The apex court further pointed out, “It is a trite law that for striking down the provisions of law or for declaring any rules as ultra vires, specific pleading to challenge the rules and asking of such relief ought to be made, that is conspicuously missing in the present case.”

The Supreme Court has sent the case back to the High Court for further proceedings consistent with its observations.

Date of Decision: September 01, 2023

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.  vs MANJURANI ROUTRAY & ORS.   

                          

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/01-Sep-2023_Manjurani_Vs_UOI.pdf"]

Latest Legal News