9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by this court - Needless to say, the order passed under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules cannot be adjudicated on the premise of inferences. In view of the foregoing, because the writ jurisdiction is unfettered, it does not invest a legal right in anyone to maintain it for all purposes. None of the judgments relied upon by the ld. Senior Counsel for the petitioner are of any avail to the petitioner. Petition dismissed as not maintainable. - W.P.(C) 9339/2019 AND CM APPL. 38521/2019 And 38522/2019 - - - Dated:- 28-8-2019 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. CHAWLA Petitioner: Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Raktim Gogoi, Mr. Varun Singh, Mr. Kartikeya Singh, Mr.Sarvasa Chhajer, Mr. Ashutosh Dubey And Mr. S.K. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he domain of Central Administrative Tribunal Mr. Vikas Singh, ld. Senior Counsel, does not dispute. In his submissions however, the instant writ petition deserves to be entertained in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of such submissions, he strenuously contends that there were proven facts on record to show that for over the years the respondents had acted against him with malice, though, he have had an outstanding track record from the time he came to be appointed as an Officer of Indian Revenue Service, in December, 1985. According to him, during the course of his such service, on his being appointed as Dy. Director of Enforcement (Delhi Zone) in Nov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n account of harassment, mental agony etc. In support of such submissions, Mr. Singh, ld. Senior Counsel places reliance upon Brij Mohan vs. Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi Ors. 2003 SCC OnLine All 230 and A.S. Bhatti vs. Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (represented by its Secretary for Home), New Delhi Ors. 1992 SCC OnLine AP 208. 4. During the course of hearing, Mr. Singh, ld. Senior Counsel was queried as to whether the petitioner would desire to maintain the writ petition only as regards the relief of damages prayed for, and, to that, Mr. Singh, categorically responded in the negative. In his submissions, the petition for the claim of damages was maintainable, and, therefore, joining of another cau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rative Tribunal. In other words, to assail such order, a statutory remedy is available to the petitioner. Similarly, for any claim of damages, a civil action by way of suit is available to the petitioner under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the given situation, when alternative remedies under law are available to the petitioner for both the reliefs, what is so extraordinary in the claim for damages to maintain the instant petition and thereby, attract challenge to the orders passed under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules, cannot be understood. More so, when, nothing has come to be pointed out that the order passed under Rule 56(j) was so patently erroneous or perverse, which invites interference by this court. Needless to say, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
