Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court 'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme Court

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