Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

Congress Party Directed To Pay Rs.266 Lakhs to U.P.S.R.T.C.: ALLHABAD HIGH COURT

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the High Court delivered a resounding verdict, directing a political party to clear its outstanding bills of Rs. 266 Lakhs, along with a 5% interest, within a three-month period. The judgment emphasized the importance of equitable considerations and the duty to ensure justice while exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The judgment addressed the case where a political party, in a dominant position, had availed public resources, specifically vehicle services provided by the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (U.P.S.R.T.C.), for its political activities. Despite repeated reminders, the political party had failed to settle the dues, leading to a legal battle over the recovery of the long-pending bills.

The High Court's decision highlighted the following key points:

  1. Political Dominance and Public Resources: The judgment noted that the political party in power had utilized public property for its political purposes. The bills were raised against the political party, but it had ignored to pay them. The Court observed, "Merely by stating that after the change of government due to political vendetta, the amount is wrongly being recovered, or taking a technical ground that the amount cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue, it cannot be granted liberty to escape its liability to pay its bills."
  2. Equitable Exercise of Jurisdiction: The Court emphasized that while exercising its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226, it must ensure that justice is done and injustice is eliminated. The judgment cited various precedents to support the idea that equity should be upheld, and undue advantages gained by a party prior to invoking the Court's jurisdiction should be taken into account before granting relief.
  3. Public Interest and Fairness: The Court recognized that public money was involved in the case, used for political purposes by the political party. It stated, "The amount is pending for the last around 25-30 years and is not cleared by the petitioner as yet." The judgment emphasized that the Court's role was to balance equities and ensure that public interest and fairness were maintained.
  4. Direction to Settle Dues: In light of the above considerations, the High Court directed the political party to pay the entire due of Rs. 266 Lakhs along with 5% interest within a period of three months.

This judgment sets a significant precedent for cases involving the recovery of public funds and underscores the Court's commitment to upholding justice and fairness in matters of public interest.

Date of Decision: 05.10.2023

U.P. Congress Committee  vs State of U.P. and ors.                   

 

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/05-Oct-2023_UP_Congress_Committe_Vs_State_AllhHC.pdf"]

Latest Legal News