# Gokul Prasad Rai and others v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2003) 1 ILRA 79
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-01-16
- **Bench:** M. Katju, Prakash Krishna
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/gokul-prasad-rai-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40074
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

S.C.

U.P.
recruitment
of
dependants
of
Government Servants Dying in Harness
Rules
1974
Rule
5
(1)
(3)
-
Compassionate
appointment
claimed
after five years after attaining the age of
majority the was already there the
purpose of compassionate appointment
to provide immediate relief to the family
of deceased employee- but not as a right
of reservation held- authorities rightly
rejected
the
claim-
warrant
no
interference.

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Gokul Prasad Rai and others Vs. State of U.P. and others
79
that date, he moved application on
18.12.2002 for giving another date to
appear and to place his version upon
which the disciplinary authority taking a
reasonable view in the matter has allowed
petitioner to appear himself and to bring
his representative on 8.1.2003 and thus
the petitioner has already joined the
proceedings pursuant to the show cause
notice. In view of the aforesaid filing of
the writ petition at this stage by the
petitioner
appears
to
be
totally
misconceived
and
it
appears
that
petitioner has unnecessarily rushed to this
court at a premature stage. As all
objections whether factual or legal which
have been taken by the petitioner before
this court can always be raised by him
before the disciplinary authority, who will
be in a better position, to go into and to
take appropriate decision in the matter in
accordance with law either way, which
this court cannot anticipate like the
petitioner, and thus no examination on
merits in respect to the various grounds is
required at this stage.

7. In view of the aforesaid, this court
is of the considered view that as the
petitioner has already participated in the
disciplinary proceedings and now the
enquiry officer has already submitted his
report, challenge to the show cause notice
in respect to the proposed punishment is
not to be entertained at this stage and thus
writ petition deserves dismissal.

8. Accordingly writ petition fails
and it is dismissed at the admission stage.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.1.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH KRISHNA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 12 of 2003(Tax)

Gokul Prasad Rai and others ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri H.P. Dube

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

U.P.
Motor
vehicles
taxation
(Amendment) Ordinance 2002 ordinance
no. 19 of 2002 Validity of the enhance
amount
of
Taxation
challenged-
provisions of new ordinance are on the
same footing as Act of the legislature
vide Art 213 (2) of the Constitution held
Governor is competent to promulgate
the ordinance under Entries No. 56 and
57 of list II of the 7th schedule of the
constitution - petition dismissed.

Held para 4-5

In H.C. Misra Vs State of U.P. C.M. Writ
Petition No. 1025 of 2001 (tax) decided
on 10.9.2002 the imposition of additional
tax has been upheld. In H.C. Misra's case
(Supra) it was observed by the Division
Bench:

"As a matter of fact even if it be assumed
that the tax liability under the new Act
has increased that by itself would be no
ground to hold that the legislation has
lost its regulatory and compensatory
character."

We are in respectful agreement with the
aforesaid division Bench decision. There
is legislative competence in the Governor
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
80 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
of the State to promulgate the impugned
Ordinance under Entries 56 and 57 of
List II of the Seventh Schedule to the
Constitution.
Case law discussed:
2000 AL J 2627
W.P. no. 1025 of 2001 decided on 10.9.2002

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju J.)

1. The petitioners have challenged
the constitutional validity of U.P. Motor
Vehicles
Taxation
(Amendment)
Ordinance 2002 (U.P. Ordinance no. 19
of 2002)

We have heard the learned counsel
for the parties.

2. Copy of the impugned Ordinance
is Annexure 5 to the writ petition and we
have carefully perused the same.

3. It may be stated that an Ordinance
is on the same legal footing as an Act of
the legislature vide Article 213 (2) of the
Constitution Hence unless it is shown that
it is violative of some provision of the
Constitution, it cannot be struck down.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has
not been able to satisfy us that the
impugned
ordinance
violated
any
provision of the Constitution. There is a
presumption in favour of constitutional
validity of an Act.

4. In H.C. Misra Vs State of U.P.
C.M. Writ Petition No. 1025 of 2001 (tax)
decided on 10.9.2002 the imposition of
additional tax has been upheld. In H.C.
Misra's case (Supra) it was observed by
the Division Bench:

"As a matter of fact even if it be
assumed that the tax liability under the
new Act has increased that by itself would
be no ground to hold that the legislation
has lost its regulatory and compensatory
character."

5. We are in respectful agreement
with
the
aforesaid
division
Bench
decision. There is legislative competence
in the Governor of the State to promulgate
the impugned Ordinance under Entries 56
and 57 of List II of the Seventh Schedule
to the Constitution.

6. We find no unconstitutionality in
the impugned Ordinance. The petition is
dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD JANUARY 14TH,
2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52065 of 2002

Santosh Kumar

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri M.K. Rai

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

U.P.
recruitment
of
dependants
of
Government Servants Dying in Harness
Rules
1974
Rule
5
(1)
(3)
-
Compassionate
appointment
claimed
after five years after attaining the age of
majority the was already there the
purpose of compassionate appointment
to provide immediate relief to the family
of deceased employee- but not as a right
of reservation held- authorities rightly
rejected
the
claim-
warrant
no
interference.