Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Construction of Overhead Bridge or Underpass on Ring Road for Safe Passage of Villagers    |     Minor Injuries No Bar for Framing Charges Under Section 307 IPC if Intent to Kill is Present: Supreme Court    |     Prosecution's Case Full of Glaring Doubts:  Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case    |     Allegations of Dowry Demand in FIR Found Vague and Driven by Civil Property Dispute: Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Chargesheet in Dowry-Cruelty Case    |     Local Police Failed to Perform its Duties: SC Directs New Investigating Officer in Property Dispute    |     Paternity Established Through SSC and Appointment Order, Legal Obligation to Maintain Unmarried Daughter: Andhra Pradesh High Court    |     No Appeal Shall Be Heard Without Disputed Tax Deposit: Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutionality of Section 96(b) of the Cantonment Act, 2006    |     Parties Must Choose Peace Over Litigation: Calcutta High Court Denies FIR Quashing in Family Dispute, Highlights Mediation Option    |     Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Recruitment of 1091 Assistant Professors and 67 Librarians In Punjab Due to Procedural Flaws    |     Res Judicata Bars Reconsideration of Adoption Validity in Second Round of Litigation: Jammu & Kashmir High Court    |     Candidates who use a party’s symbol must be deemed members of that party: Kerala High Court Upholds Disqualification for Defection    |     Inconsistencies in Eyewitness Accounts and Lack of Forensic Certainty Lead to Acquittal: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case    |     Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Notices Under Section 148 Due to Invalid Sanction by JCIT    |     Summons Under PMLA for Further Investigation Does Not Infringe Right Against Self-Incrimination: Telangana HC    |     Termination During Probation Is Lawful if Concealment of Criminal Case Is Proven: Allahabad HC    |     Disproportionate Fine Cannot Be Imposed for Recovery of 1 Liter of Country-made Liquor: Patna High Court    |     Prosecution failed to prove identity of remains and establish murder beyond reasonable doubt: Orissa High Court Acquit Ex-Husband    |     Despite 12 Injuries on the Victim, No Intention to Kill Found: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 304 Part-II IPC    |     Governor’s sanction suffers from non-application of mind: Karnataka High Court Stays Governor’s Sanction for Investigation Against CM Siddaramaiah    |    

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"]

Similar News