Ocular Evidence Prevails Over Medical Findings: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Despite Negative Semen Report & Police Lapses High Court Cannot Pass Inconsistent Orders: Supreme Court Quashes Demolition Order Passed Despite Earlier Restraint In CMDA Regularisation Dispute Supreme Court Upholds Validity Of Open University Degrees Obtained Prior To 2017 Cut-Off Must Be A Polluter Before Being Held Absolutely Liable: Supreme Court Sets Aside NGT Order Against Art Of Living Over Yamuna Event, Orders ₹5 Cr Refund Father Cannot Be Deprived Of Minor's Custody Unless Proved Unfit: Allahabad High Court Hands Over 4-Yr-Old Child To Father, Sets Aside Trial Court Order Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Integral To Personal Liberty': Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail As 24 Witnesses Remain Unexamined No Specific Chemical Opinion That Seized Substance Was Ganja: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Under Section 2(iii)(b) NDPS Act Mere Pendency Of Criminal Cases Simplicitor No Ground For Externment': Karnataka High Court Quashes Raichur SDM Order Order VI Rule 16 CPC | Defendants Enjoy Greater Latitude In Altering Defence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Explains Doctrinal Leeway Under CPC Boarding Running Train Not Self-Inflicted Injury: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Order Denying Compensation Possession Of One Co-Sharer Is Possession Of All: J&K&L High Court Cannot Invoke Article 226 For Registering FIR Or Restoring Water Supply: Kerala High Court Natural Guardian's Sale Of Minor's Property Without Court Nod Is Voidable, Extinguishes If Not Challenged Within 3 Years Of Majority: Madras High Court Orissa High Court Rejects Cancer-Survivor Husband's Plea To Transfer Maintenance Case Presumption Of Correctness Of Judicial Records Not Absolute And Can Be Rebutted By Direct Evidence: Kerala High Court on Married Daughter Cannot Challenge Partition After 21-Year Slumber If She Had Knowledge: Madhya Pradesh High Court Kerala High Court Orders Immediate Suspension Of Lakshadweep CJM For Allegedly Forging Witness Deposition To Convict Accused Defect In Served Copy Of Affidavit Not Fatal: Supreme Court Restores Election Petition Challenging Lok Sabha Poll Result, Clarifies Law On Form-25 Attestation

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