# Rajendra Prasad v. Union of India and others

- **Citation:** (2001) 1 ILRA 363
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2000-11-13
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajendra-prasad-v-union-of-india-and-others-39740
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
363
narrated
the
full
incident
and
his
statement has been believed by the
Tribunal. His statement clearly indicates
that the accident was caused due to rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the
truck.

In view of the above, we do not find
any merit in the appeal. It is, accordingly,
dismissed with costs to the claimantrespondents.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 6 . 6(1 &-
7+( +21·%/( 6 . 6(1 &-
7+( +21·%/( 6 5 $/$0 -
7+( +21·%/( 6 5 $/$0 -

)LUVW $SSHDO IURP 2UGHU 1R RI

1DXPL 5DP
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
'\
&ROOHFWRU
83
=LODGKLNDUL
7DKVLO
6DJUL 'LVWULFW $]DPJDUK DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH $SSHOODQW
6KUL 63 *XSWD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6KUL &6 6LQJK

1DWXUDO
-XVWLFH
±
3ULQFLSOHV
RI
±
$SSOLFDELOLW\
+HOG ± 3DUD
:H DUH RI WKH YLHZ WKDW LW LV REOLJDWRU\
RQ WKH UHVSRQGHQW DXWKRULWLHV WR IROORZ
WKH SURFHGXUH SUHVFULEHG E\ WKH /DZ DQG
WKHUH
LV
QR
SRZHU
FRQIHUUHG
RQ
WKH
DXWKRULW\ WR VWRS WKH VXSSO\ RQ WKH EDVLV
RI PHUH DOOHJDWLRQV RU FRPSODLQW DQG WR
WDNH VXFK DFWLRQ ZLWKRXW DIIRUGLQJ DQ
RSSRUWXQLW\ WR WKH ZULW SHWLWLRQHU ,Q WKH
FLUFXPVWDQFHV
WKH
LPSXJQHG
RUGHU
GDWHG WK 1RYHPEHU¶ LV TXDVKHG
7KH VXSSO\ VKDOO EH UHVWRUHG WR WKH ZULW
SHWLWLRQHU
IRUWKZLWK
:H
KRZHYHU
REVHUYH WKDW LW VKDOO EH RSHQ WR WKH
UHVSRQGHQW
DXWKRULWLHV
WR
WDNH
DSSURSULDWH DFWLRQ LQ DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK
/DZ
By the Court

1. We have heard Sri S.P. Gupta,
learned Advocate for the writ petitioner
and Sri C.S. Singh learned Standing
Counsel appearing for respondents no. 1
and 2.

2. On the basis of some complaint
received
by
Up-Ziladhikari
(SubDivisional Officer) tehsil Sagari, District
Azamgarh, supply of the writ petitioner
who claims to be a fair price shop dealer
has been stopped by the Sub-Divisional
Officer, respondent no. 1. The order has
been issued by the said respondent to that
effect on 13.11.2000. It does not appear
that any inquiry is pending or any
opportunity of hearings was given on the
allegation made in the said complaint.

3. We are of the view that it is
obligatory on the respondent authorities to
follow the procedure prescribed by the
law and there is no power conferred on
the authority to stop the supply on the
basis of more allegation or compliant and
to take such action without affording an
opportunity to the writ petitioner. In the
circumstances, the impugned order dated
13th November'2000 is quashed. The
supply shall be restored to the writ
petitioner forthwith. We however observe
that it shall be open to the respondent
authorities to take appropriate action in
accordance with law.

The writ petition succeeds and is
allowed.
1All] Rajendra Prasad V. Union of India and others
364
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 6 5 6,1*+ -
7+( +21·%/( 6 5 6,1*+ -
7+( +21·%/( ' 5 &+$8'+$5< -
7+( +21·%/( ' 5 &+$8'+$5< -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

5DMHQGUD 3UDVDG
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
8QLRQ RI ,QGLD WKURXJK *HQHUDO 0DQDJHU
DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH $SSHOODQW
6KUL 0 ' 0LVKUD
6KUL 'LOHHS 0LVKUD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6KUL $ . 5DL

$GPLQLVWUDWLYH 7ULEXQDO $FW 6HFWLRQ
 ± DV DPHQGHG E\ $FW 1R RI
 ± -XULVGLFWLRQ RI ,QGXVWULDO 7ULEXQDO
/DERXU
&RXUW
RU
DQ\
DXWKRULW\
FRQVWLWXWHG XQGHU WKH ,QGXVWULDO 'LVSXWH
$FW KDV SRZHU WR DGMXGLFDWH WKH
PDWWHU UHJDUGLQJ UHFUXLWPHQW DQG VXFK
VHUYLFH
PDWWHU
DV
PD\
EH RWKHUZLVH
IDOOLQJ ZLWKLQ WKH MXULVGLFWLRQ RI &$7 ±
DPHQGHG SURYLVLRQ JLYHV FKRLFH WR WKH
OLWLJDQW
ZRUNPDQ
HLWKHU
WR
DSSURDFK
EHIRUH WKH &$7 RU EHIRUH WKH ODERXU
FRXUW
+HOG ± 3DUD
7KH DPHQGHG SURYLVLRQ JLYHV D FKRLFH WR
WKH OLWLJDQW ZRUNPDQ HLWKHU WR DSSURDFK
WKH &HQWUDO $GPLQLVWUDWLYH 7ULEXQDO RU
WKH /DERXU &RXUW DQG LQ FDVH WKH OLWLJDQW
KDV FKRVHQ WKH IRUXP RI WKH &HQWUDO
$GPLQLVWUDWLYH 7ULEXQDO LW FDQQRW VDLG
WKDW WKH DSSOLFDWLRQ LV QRW PDLQWDLQDEOH

By the Court

1. Heard Sri M.D. Mishra, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K.
Rai,
learned
counsel
representing
respondents and perused the order passed
by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Allahabad
Bench,
Allahabad
thereby
holding that the applicant under Section
19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act,
1985 (in short the 'Act') filed by the
petitioner is not maintainable.

2. Admittedly, the petitioner comes
within the purview of "Workman" within
the meaning of the term as defined in
Section 2(z) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947. The question is whether an
application under section 19 of the Act is
maintainable
before
the
Central
Administrative
Tribunal
and
it
has
jurisdiction to entertain the application
concerning
services
matters
of
the
workman. Section 2 of the Administrative
Tribunal Act, 1985 enumerates the matter
is respect of which the provisions of the
Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 will
have no application. Clause (b) of Section
2, as it stood before its omission by Act
No. 19 of 1986 with effect from 01.11.85,
reads thus "any person governed by the
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (14 of 1947) in regard to such
matters in respect of which he is so
governed". After omission of Clause (b)
from section 2 of the Act with effect from
01.11.85 the provision of the Act became
applicable in relation to any matter is
respect of which a workman is governed
by the provisions of the Industrial
disputes, 1947. The Section 28 of the Act
was also amended by the self same Act 19
of 1986 where by jurisdiction of all
Courts "except the Supreme Court; or any
Industrial Tribunal, Labour Court or other
Authority constituted under the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) or any
other corresponding law for the time
being in force," has been ousted. As a
result of the amendment in Section 28, it