District Judiciary Retirement Age | Supreme Court Directs Enhancement To 62 Years To Arrest Attrition Of Judicial Talent Slogans Inciting Armed Rebellion Or Challenging Sovereignty Cannot Be Equated With Religious Expressions: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court Indian Law Does Not Recognise 'Joint Parenting' As A Statutory Concept; Child Welfare Remains Paramount: Bombay High Court Order 26 Rule 9 CPC | Court Must Appoint Survey-Knowing Commissioner In Suits Alleging Physical Encroachment And Boundary Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 33-C(2) ID Act | Labour Court Has Jurisdiction To Recover Consequential Benefits Arising From CAT Orders: Delhi High Court Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC | Procedural Law Is Meant For Advancement Of Justice; Technicalities Should Not Scuttle Opportunity To Lead Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court High Court Can Condition Condonation Of Delay In Land Acquisition Appeals Upon Waiver Of Interest For Delayed Period: Bombay High Court Employees Compensation Act | Insurance Company Not Liable To Indemnify Penalty Imposed On Employer Under Section 4-A(3)(b): Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees’ Compensation Act | Failure To Frame Issue On Employer-Employee Relationship Vitiates Commissioner’s Award: Kerala High Court Default Bail Under Section 187 BNSS | Period Of Investigation Depends On Substance Of Allegations In FIR, Not Merely Mentioned Sections: Madhya Pradesh High Court SARFAESI Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Must Be Challenged Under Section 17 Before DRT, Not Via Writ Petition: Kerala High 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