# M/s L.M.L. Limited, Kanpur v. Union of India and others

- **Citation:** (2004) 2 ILRA 567
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2004-08-25
- **Case number:** Writ Petition No. 33645 of 2004
- **Bench:** M. Katju, Umeshwar Pandey
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-l-m-l-limited-kanpur-v-union-of-india-and-others-40251
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Indian Penal Code, 1890-Ss. 493, 24, 25-
Service
Law-Termination
orderPetitioners a Tax Collector, had clear
intention
to
misappropriate-huge
amount collected by him as tax-retention
of amount for considerable period and
utilization of money for personal gainDeposit of amount only after suspension,
does not absolve petitioner from his guilt
misappropriating
the
amount-No
explanation for not depositing amount.
Thus
intention
to
misappropriate
amount-established charges-No ground
for interfere with punishment awarded
by disciplinary Authority.

Held: Para 6 and 14

In the present case, the petitioner
collected a sum of Rs.1,48,000.00 and
odd and did not deposit the money in the
Treasury for a long time. The petitioner
retained and used this amount for his
own personal gain. Subsequently, on the
basis of a preliminary enquiry, it was
found that the petitioner had retained a
large sum of money on the basis of
which the petitioner was suspended and

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] M/s LML Ltd. V. Union of India and others
567
Court
in
Dinesh
Chandra
Gahotri
judgment [supra] had held " that the Chief
of the Army Staff may be sued anywhere
in the country."

In my view, the word 'may' is only
directory and is not mandatory nor does it
give a right to the petitioner to sue the
Chief of the Army Staff anywhere in the
country according to his own choice,
whims or caprice. The chief of the Army
Staff can be sued anywhere in the
country, provided the cause of action or a
part of the cause of action arose in that
State.

10. In view of the aforesaid it is
clear that the Court has no territorial
jurisdiction to decide the writ petition.
There is another aspect of the matter, the
writ petition is also liable to be dismissed
on the ground of laches. From the
averments made in the writ petition it is
clear that the order of punishment was
passed on 21.7.1997 and the statutory
petition of the petitioner under section
164
[2]
was
rejected
on
24.2.98.
According to the petitioner he was
transferred and posted to Allahabad in
April 1999 and thereafter filed the writ
petition in May 2000 before this Court.
No explanation has been given as to why
the petitioner could not file a writ petition
between the period 24.2.1998 and April
1999 i.e. from the date of rejection of the
petition under section 164[2] of the Army
Act and his posting at Allahabad. Further,
the explanation given by the petitioner for
the period April 1999 to May 2000 is
vague
and
does
not
inspire
any
confidence. The explanation given seems
to be an afterthought in order to cover up
the delay.

11. Accordingly, I find that the
petitioner
is
not
entitled
to
any
discretionary relief from this Court. The
writ petition is dismissed with cost on the
ground of laches as well as on the ground
of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
Petition Dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.8.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE UMESHWAR PANDEY, J.

Writ Petition No. 33645 of 2004

M/s L.M.L. Limited, Kanpur ...Appellants
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri V.B. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri K.C. Sinha, S.S.C.
Sri Rajesh Tewari
Sri Md. Khursheed Alam

Constitution of India-Art. 226-Premature
stage-Writ
against
order
asking
Petitioner to produce certain documentsheld, premature-Moreover, alternative
remedy available under S. 75 of ESI-Act,
if any adverse order is passed Petition
held not maintainable.

Held: Para 3 & 4

We have perused the impugned orders.
These
orders
have
only
asked
the
petitioner to produce certain documents.
In our opinion, these notices do not
amount to any adverse order against the
petitioner.
Hence
the
petition
is
premature. Moreover, if any adverse
order is passed against the petitioner, he
has an alternative remedy to approach
the E.S.I. Court under Section 75 of the
E.S.I. Act. In Special Director and
another Vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and
another 2004 A.I.R. S.C.W. 416, the
Supreme Court deprecated the practice
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
568
of the High Court of entertaining writ
petitions against a show cause notice.

The Writ Petition is premature and is
dismissed at this stage.
Case law discussed:
2004 AIR SCW 416

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner.

2. The petitioner has challenged the
impugned orders dated 30.7.2004 and
9.8.2004 (Annexures 8 and 9 to the Writ
Petition).

3. We have perused the impugned
orders. These orders have only asked the
petitioner to produce certain documents.
In our opinion, these notices do not
amount to any adverse order against the
petitioner.
Hence
the
petition
is
premature. Moreover, if any adverse order
is passed against the petitioner, he has an
alternative remedy to approach the E.S.I.
Court under Section 75 of the E.S.I. Act.
In Special Director and another Vs.
Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another 2004
A.I.R. S.C.W. 416, the Supreme Court
deprecated the practice of the High Court
of entertaining writ petitions against a
show cause notice.

4. The Writ Petition is premature
and is dismissed at this stage.
Petition Dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.08.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Writ Petition No.5728 of 1996

Rama Shanker Shukla
...Petitioner
Versus
Nagar Mahapalika Allahabad and another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vikas Budhwar
Sri R.M. Saggi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Rakesh Dwivedi
Sri S.D. Kautilya
Sri A.K. Shukla

Indian Penal Code, 1890-Ss. 493, 24, 25-
Service
Law-Termination
orderPetitioners a Tax Collector, had clear
intention
to
misappropriate-huge
amount collected by him as tax-retention
of amount for considerable period and
utilization of money for personal gainDeposit of amount only after suspension,
does not absolve petitioner from his guilt
misappropriating
the
amount-No
explanation for not depositing amount.
Thus
intention
to
misappropriate
amount-established charges-No ground
for interfere with punishment awarded
by disciplinary Authority.

Held: Para 6 and 14

In the present case, the petitioner
collected a sum of Rs.1,48,000.00 and
odd and did not deposit the money in the
Treasury for a long time. The petitioner
retained and used this amount for his
own personal gain. Subsequently, on the
basis of a preliminary enquiry, it was
found that the petitioner had retained a
large sum of money on the basis of
which the petitioner was suspended and