# The Good Cause Association v. The State of U.P. & others

- **Citation:** (2003) 3 ILRA 934
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-09-05
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7699 of 2002
- **Bench:** R.K. Dash, V.S. Bajpai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-good-cause-association-v-the-state-of-u-p-others-40224
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Constitution of India Article 226-Practice
and
Procedure-Judicial
Revier-in
administrative action-scope and ambitpetitioner unable to make out any casecourt not inclined to scrutinize policy
decision of the State.

Constitution of India Article 226-Judicial
revier in administration actions-relevant
report
under
scrutiny
by
State
Legislature-decision thereon not taken
yet-it is premature for the court to hold
an inquiry-to establish irregularity or
lapses
by
public
authority-however,
court may interfere if no decision is
taken or there is a delay in taking
decision.

Held-Para 10
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] The Good Cause Association V. The State of U.P. and others
935
Keeping in mind the scope and ambit of
power
of
judicial
review
in
administrative
actions,
we
are
not
inclined to scrutinize the policy decision
of the State for creation of Ambedkar
Park, particularly when the petitioner
has not been able to make out any case
for judicial review. Added to that, it may
be noted, the report of the Comptroller &
Auditor
General
of
India
regarding
expenditure incurred for the said project
is under scrutiny by the State Legislature
and no decision has yet been taken
thereon. We hope and trust, the august
House, a trustee of public exchequer will
take a decision on the report of the
Comptroller & Auditor General of India
without
further
delay
to
reinforce
people's faith in it. In the event, no
decision is taken or there is delay in
taking a decision, the Court in due
discharge of its constitutional function
may pass appropriate order either suo
moto or approach being made by a
public-spirited
individual
or
by
any
association espousing public cause.
Case laws discussed:
AIR 1996 SC 11
2003 (4) SCC 289

## Text

http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
934 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
appointed in the substantive capacity in
the post vacated by Sri Nath Yadav
without unfolding precise dates can at
best be termed as generalized and vague
averments
without
any
indicia
of
authenticity and in the circumstances, the
conclusion
is
irresistible
that
the
Committee
of
Management
induced
approval from the then District Inspector
of Schools against a non-existent post and
the petitioner was not appointed in
accordance with law on any sanctioned
post as contemplated under section 9 of
the U.P. High Schools and Intermediate
Colleges
(Payment
of
Salaries
of
Teachers and other Employees) act, 1971
and in consequence, he cannot be held
entitled to payment of salary from the
State Exchequer. It transpires from the
above conspectus that approval accorded
to the appointment by the District
Inspector Schools operated in vacuum
inasmuch as there was no sanctioned post
and
resultantly,
the
action
of
the
respondents in rescinding approval and
stopping salary of the petitioner cannot be
held to be vitiated. I would not forbear
from expressing that the onus lay on the
petitioner to prove the validity of his
appointment and petitioner having failed
to do, the bald averments do not
commend to me for acceptance.

6. As a result of foregoing
discussion, the petition fails and is
dismissed. Interim order which was
granted and operated is hereby vacated
and it would be open to the respondents to
initiate appropriate action for recovery of
the amount already paid as salary from
the State Exchequer against invalid
approval to the appointment of the
petitioner. Before parting it may be
observed that if the petitioner feels
aggrieved that he has performed duties
consequent upon his appointment, he may
claim his salary from the Management of
the College in question.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.09.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE R.K. DASH, J.
THE HON'BLE V.S. BAJPAI, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7699 of
2002

The Good Cause Association ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. & others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.R. Singh
Sri P.K. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri B.N. Singh, S.S.C.
Sri Giridhar Nath, S.C.
Sri Satish Chandra Misra
Sri Amarjeet Singh, A.G.A.

Constitution of India Article 226-Practice
and
Procedure-Judicial
Revier-in
administrative action-scope and ambitpetitioner unable to make out any casecourt not inclined to scrutinize policy
decision of the State.

Constitution of India Article 226-Judicial
revier in administration actions-relevant
report
under
scrutiny
by
State
Legislature-decision thereon not taken
yet-it is premature for the court to hold
an inquiry-to establish irregularity or
lapses
by
public
authority-however,
court may interfere if no decision is
taken or there is a delay in taking
decision.

Held-Para 10
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] The Good Cause Association V. The State of U.P. and others
935
Keeping in mind the scope and ambit of
power
of
judicial
review
in
administrative
actions,
we
are
not
inclined to scrutinize the policy decision
of the State for creation of Ambedkar
Park, particularly when the petitioner
has not been able to make out any case
for judicial review. Added to that, it may
be noted, the report of the Comptroller &
Auditor
General
of
India
regarding
expenditure incurred for the said project
is under scrutiny by the State Legislature
and no decision has yet been taken
thereon. We hope and trust, the august
House, a trustee of public exchequer will
take a decision on the report of the
Comptroller & Auditor General of India
without
further
delay
to
reinforce
people's faith in it. In the event, no
decision is taken or there is delay in
taking a decision, the Court in due
discharge of its constitutional function
may pass appropriate order either suo
moto or approach being made by a
public-spirited
individual
or
by
any
association espousing public cause.
Case laws discussed:
AIR 1996 SC 11
2003 (4) SCC 289

(Delivered by Hon'ble R.K. Dash, J.)

1. This is the petitioner's second
journey to this Court against the State as
well as the Chief Minister and other
officials; its earlier writ petition no. 2423
of 1997 having been finally disposed of
with certain observations. In the said writ
petition, the petitioner had made certain
allegations against the present respondent
no. 2 and prayed for issue of a writ, order
or direction directing the Vigilance
Commissioner and Central Bureau of
Investigation
(C.B.I.
for
short)
for
investigation of the offences of cheating
the criminal breach of trust. Further
prayer was made to direct the aforesaid
public authorities to come before the
Court and furnish an undertaking to
perform their duties of investigation
within stipulated time.

2. The grievance of the petitioner as
appears from the order, annexure-1, was
with regard to creation of Greater NOIDA
and investment of huge amount from
public
exchequer
for
creation
of
Ambedkar Park. The Court upon hearing
the counsel for the petitioner, Advocate
General for respondent no. 2 and counsel
for the C.B.I. disposed of the said writ
petition with the observation and direction
that the Comptroller & Auditor General of
India which has taken up inquiry as
entrusted to it by the State Government
with regard to creation of Ambedkar Park
shall make all endeavor to conclude the
inquiry preferably within four months. As
regard the allegation concerning Greater
Noida, in view of submission made by the
learned counsel appearing for the CBI that
pursuant to notification by the Central
Government,
the
matter
had
been
entrusted to CBI for investigation, the
Court held the writ petition to have
become infructuous.

3. More than five years thereafter,
the petitioner filed the present writ
petition when respondent no.2 was elected
as leader of the ruling coalition and
became Chief Minister of the State. The
prayer as made in the writ petition are:

"I) to issue a writ, order or direction
commanding the opposite parties no.1, 3
and 4 (State of U.P., Central Bureau of
Investigation and Comptroller & Auditor
General of India) to submit all inquiry
reports made against opposite party no. 2;

ii) to issue a writ, order or direction to
comply the direction of this Court made
in the earlier writ petition and to put
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
936 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
opposite party nos. 2 and 5 on criminal
trial and to punish them."

4. On behalf of respondent-State,
two short counter affidavits were filed;
one by Ram Brikchh Prasad, Special
Secretary, Appointment, Government of
Uttar Pradesh and other Amitabh Tripathi,
Under Secretary, Housing & Urban
Planning, Government of Uttar Pradesh.
The Special Secretary in the counter
affidavit has stated that the C.B.I. after
holding inquiry concerning Greater Noida
submitted
report
on
31-3-1999
recommending that such action as deemed
fit may be taken against Babu Ram, the
then Chairman of Greater Noida and for
departmental
action
against
Yogesh
Kumar.
After
receiving
the
recommendation,
explanations
were
called from those two officers. Upon
receipt of explanations, the Industrial
Development Commissioner reported that
no case for taking any action is made out
against Yogesh Kumar on the basis of
materials available on record. So far Babu
Ram is concerned, upon examination, it
was decided not to take any action against
him since he had already retired from
service. In the counter affidavit filed on
behalf of the CBI, it appears that the
allegation against these two officers was
with regard to passing resolution for
changing nature of the land from
industrial
to
home-stead
and
after
thorough
inquiry,
the
C.B.I.
recommended for taking departmental
action against them.

5. So. Far the allegation with regard
to Ambedkar Park, it stated in the counter
affidavit of the Under Secretary that the
Comptroller & Auditor General of India
made a special audit and submitted a
report which was ultimately placed before
State Legislative Assembly on 15-7-1999
and as provided under Articles 151 and
154 of the Constitution, the said report is
being examined and considered by the
Public Accounts Committee of the U.P.
Legislative Assembly and since the said
Committee is seized of the matter, no writ
petition would lie for directing to hold a
parallel probe.

6. From the factual scenario as
aforesaid, what is deducible is that the
petitioner has charged the Ex-Chief
Minister Mayawati with two allegations;
one concerning Greater Noida and other,
regarding creation of Ambedkar Park. The
earlier writ petition was finally disposed
of with certain observations as referred to
earlier. It appears from the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of the C.B.I. that
the allegations against two officers of
Greater Noida for changing the nature of
land from industrial to home-stead having
been found true, recommendation was
made for taking departmental action. In
such view of the matter, we do not like to
make further inquiry by calling upon the
inquiry report from the C.B.I. in exercise
of power under Article 226 of the
Constitution.

7. Adverting to the allegation of
creation of Ambedkar Park, as pointed out
in the counter affidavit filed by the Under
Secretary, the Comptroller & Auditor
General of India having made inquiry
submitted report which was then placed
before the State Legislative Assembly and
the
report
is
now
under
active
consideration of the Public Accounts
Committee. The writ petition does not
reveal as to what is the petitioner's
grievance regarding creation of Ambedkar
Park. Besides, the Court is unaware of the
contents of the report of the Comptroller
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] The Good Cause Association V. The State of U.P. and others
937
& Auditor General of India, in as much
as,
whether
there
was
misuse
or
misappropriation of public money or
whether work was entrusted to kith and
kin of any person holding high office or
whether the work undertaken was not
according
to
prescribed
norm
and
standard. Moreover, when Constitutional
body is seized of the matter and is
scrutinizing the report, it is pre-mature for
the Court to hold an inquiry to find out
any irregularity or lapses on the part of
the Government and its officials.

8. It need not be emphasized that the
three organs of a democratic State
namely,
legislature,
executive
and
judiciary must act independently within
parameters of law. One should not
impinge the jurisdiction of the other. It is
however, complained that the legislature
and the executive have lost the track and
are acting in a manner detrimental to the
interest of the society causing incalculable
harm to the socio-economic development
of the country. It is by their such act that
interests
of
the
poor,
downtrodden
peasants and factory workers are seriously
affected. So the Judiciary which acts as a
bastion of the rights and liberties of the
citizen when approached by an individual
or group of persons or any community
complaining abuse or misuse of power by
legislature and the executive, it becomes
its solemn duty to take appropriate action
in accordance with law and bring about a
check in the exercise of their such power.
Certain sections of the society are
complaining that judiciary is very often
encroaching upon the functioning of the
legislature and the executive which is not
a healthy sign for democracy. We refrain
ourselves from making any observation
on this aspect. It is to be grasped that
judiciary is the last hope of the people.
So, when a citizen complaining abuse or
misuse of power by those two organs
approaches the court for appropriate
action, the court does hesitate taking a
decision to bring them within their
bounds. Of course, while doing so, the
court
may
have
committed
some
mistakes, but those are certainly not
grave. No one is infallible and judiciary is
not an exception to it.

9. As has been well said, "judicial
review" is a great weapon in the hands of
the Judges; but the Judges must observe
the constitutional limits set by our
parliamentary system upon the exercise of
this beneficient power." The Court is to be
circumspect while exercising power of
review in administrative matters. As the
words of 'judicial review' imply, it is not
an appeal from a decision but a review of
the manner in which the decision was
made. Shortly put, the grounds upon
which an administrative action is subject
to control by judicial review can be
classified as (i) illegality; (ii) irrationality
('Wednesbury' unreasonableness) and (iii)
procedural impropriety. In the celebrated
judgement in the case of Tata Cellular vs.
Union of India & others; AIR 1996 SC
11, the Apex Court held that it is not for
the Court to determine whether a
particular policy or particular decision
taken in the fulfillment of that policy is
fair. In a latest decision in the case of
Federation
of
Railway
Officers
Association and others vs. Union of
India; (2003) 4 SCC 289, the Court has
also held that unless the policy or action is
inconsistent with the Constitution and the
laws or arbitrary or irrational or abouse of
power, the court will not interfere with
such matter.
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
938 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003

10. Keeping in mind the scope and
ambit of power of judicial review in
administrative actions, we are not inclined
to scrutinize the policy decision of the
State for creation of Ambedkar Park,
particularly when the petitioner has not
been able to make out any case for
judicial review. Added to that, it may be
noted, the report of the Comptroller &
Auditor General of India regarding
expenditure incurred for the said project is
under scrutiny by the State Legislature
and no decision has yet been taken
thereon. We hope and trust, the august
House, a trustee of public exchequer will
take a decision on the report of the
Comptroller & Auditor General of India
without further delay to reinforce people's
faith in it. In the event, no decision is
taken or there is delay in taking a
decision, the Court in due discharge of its
constitutional
function
may
pass
appropriate order either suo moto or
approach being made by a public-spirited
individual
or
by
any
association
espousing public cause.

In view of discussions made above,
the writ petition having no merit is
dismissed. In the circumstances, there
shall be no order as to cost.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.09.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9080 of 2003

Raj Kumar

...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Arvind Srivastva

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri B.N. Singh, S.S.C.
Sri Deepak Verma, A.S.C.
S.C.

Constitution of India, Article 226-Service
Law-termination-false declaration, about
pendency of criminal case given before
summary departmental proceedings-no
procedural irregularity found-dismissal
from service-held-proper.

Held: para 13

In the present case, petitioner had
willfully made false declaration. He was
subjected to proceeding of Summary
Security Force Court in which he denied
that he denied to the charge. His denial
was found to be false. The procedure
provided for Summary Security Force
Court was duly followed. He was, as
such, rightly dismissed from service.
Case laws discussed:
1997 (2) UPLBEC 1201
1999 (2) SCC 247
2000 (1) ESC 688
2002 (1) ESC (Alld) 69
1997 SCC (L&S) 492
JT 2002 (2) SC 256

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.)

1. Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava for
petitioner
and
Sri
Deepak
Verma,
Additional Standing Counsel for Union of
India, respondents 1 to 4.

Petitioner was enrolled as Constable
in Border Security Force on 5.3.2002. He
completed his training in the month of
December, 2002 and was posted as
Constable in 14th Battalion in Punjab. On
28.6.2002, petitioner was called by
Additional Deputy Director General of
Police/Commandant
STC,
Training