# Wahid Hussain v. Indian Oil Corporation & Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 1 ILRA 484
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-03-04
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13335 of 2014
- **Bench:** Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Vivek Kumar Birla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/wahid-hussain-v-indian-oil-corporation-ors-42892
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India-Art.-226-disability
certificate-issued
to
R-4
after
due
verification-corporation
acted
upongrievance of petitioner that R-4 not
suffering 40% disability-petitioner could
have approach before medical BoardCourt is no medical expert-held-entirecomplaint-misconceived-
can
not
interfered by Civil Court.

Held:Para-8
There is no challenge raised to the
certificate issued to the respondent no. 4 by
the petitioner on any substantial material to
support the allegations. This Court is no
medical expert to receive any material and
medically assess the disability certified by
the medical authority. The petitioner could
have approached the authority competent
dealing with the medical board as per any
rules therein but it appears that instead of
that the District Magistrate was handed
over a complaint.

## Text

484 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Said request has not been opposed by the
learned standing counsel and Sri S.P. Singh,
learned counsel, who appears for the private
respondent.

17. Having considered the aforesaid
request, a direction is issued to the
Authorized Controller to hold the election of
Committee of Management of the Institution
as expeditiously as possible preferably within
a period of three months from the date of
receipt certified copy of this order.

18. No order as to costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.03.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.
THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13335 of 2014

Wahid Hussain......................... Petitioner
Versus
Indian Oil Corporation & Ors. Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri D.K. Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Shri Prakash Padia

Constitution of India-Art.-226-disability
certificate-issued
to
R-4
after
due
verification-corporation
acted
upongrievance of petitioner that R-4 not
suffering 40% disability-petitioner could
have approach before medical BoardCourt is no medical expert-held-entirecomplaint-misconceived-
can
not
interfered by Civil Court.

Held:Para-8
There is no challenge raised to the
certificate issued to the respondent no. 4 by
the petitioner on any substantial material to
support the allegations. This Court is no
medical expert to receive any material and
medically assess the disability certified by
the medical authority. The petitioner could
have approached the authority competent
dealing with the medical board as per any
rules therein but it appears that instead of
that the District Magistrate was handed
over a complaint.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap
Sahi, J.)

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the
selection of the respondent no. 4 under the
physically handicapped category alleging
that the certificate of physical disability that
has been relied upon by the respondent no. 4
is not correct and the respondent no. 4 does
not suffer from any blindness.

2. This complaint was sought to be
resolved by moving a representation before
the Indian Oil Corporation and thereafter
filing a Writ Petition No. 41353 of 2013
where a direction was issued to the
Corporation to examine the complaint of the
petitioner and pass an appropriate order. The
judgment of this Court dated 31.7.2013 is
Annexure 1 to the writ petition.

3. It appears that the respondentCorporation thereafter proceeded to make
an inquiry about the status of the
certificate of the respondent no. 4 from
the Chief Medical Officer, Moradabad
who has informed the corporation that the
certificate of physical disability tendered
to the respondent no. 4 is genuine. A
photostat copy of the said information
dated 13/20.8.2013 which has not been
filed along with the writ petition, has been
produced by Sri Prakash Padia learned
counsel for the respondent-Corporation.
The same is extracted hereinunder:-

dk;kZy; eq[; fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh] eqjknkcknA
1 All] Wahid Hussain Vs. Indian Oil Corporation & Ors.

485

la[;k% lh,evks@fo0iz0i=
@iqf"V@2013@9535 fnukad 13-08-2013

lsok esa]

lnL; ,Q0oh0lh0

3ch@362 cqf) fogkj e>kSyk]

fnYyh jksM] eqjknkcknA

fo"k; % fodykWxrk izek.k i= la[;k&35
fnukad 29-09-2009 dh iqf"V fd;s tkus ds laca/k esaSA

mijksDr fo"k;d vius dk;kZy; ds i=
la[;k%ch0,0vks0@,e0ch0Mh0@laHky@3] fnukad 0308-2013 dk lanHkZ ysus dk d"V djsaA ftlds }kjk
vkius Jh equsUnz flag dks tkjh fd;s x;s fodykWxrk
izek.k i= ds lEc/ka esa iqf"V pkgh gSA mDr ds lEca/k
esa voxr djkuk gs fd Jh equsUnz flag iq= Jh enu
flag fuoklh eUuh [ksM+k iks0 ng;k] ftyk eqjknkckn
dks fuxZr fodykWxrk izek.k i= la[;k%35] fnukad
29-09-2009 bl dk;kZy; }kjk gh tkjh fd;k x;k
gSA

lwpukFkZ izsf"krA

eq[; fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh

eqjknkckn

4. In the aforesaid situation, we find
that the Corporation at its level has
carried out its responsibility of verifying
the status of the physical disability
certificate.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
then contends that the actual complaint of
the petitioner has not been verified. He
contends that the disability itself should
have been examined by the Corporation in
order to find out the truth of such claim
by the respondent no. 4.

6. We are unable to agree on this
issue inasmuch as the physical disability
certificate has to be granted under the
relevant Act and Rules which has already
been indicated in the brochure of the
respondent-Corporation
which
is
extracted hereinunder:-

"I. Physically Handicapped Category
(PH) :

Candidates
would
be
considered
eligible under this category in case the
candidates are orthopaedically handicapped
to the extent of minimum of 40%
permanent (partial) disability of either upper
or lower limbs; or 50% permanent (partial)
disability of both upper and lower limbs
together. For this purpose, the standards
contained in the Manual for Orthopaedic
Surgeon in evaluating Permanent Physically
Impairment brought out by the American
Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, USA
and published on its behalf by the Artificial
Limbs Manufacturing Corporation of India,
G.T. Road, Kanpur, shall apply.

Deaf, Dumb and Blind persons with
minimum degree of 40% disability will
also be eligible to apply for all RGGLVs
under this category. However, totally
blind persons will not be eligible.

Candidate applying under this category
should produce a certificate (as per the
standard format given in the application
format) issued by a Medical Board duly
constituted by the Central/State government
as per the Gazette of India Extraordinary
New Delhi, No. 154 dated June 13, 2001 on
Guidelines
for
evaluation
of
various
disabilities and procedure for certification."

7.

Thus,
the
Corporation
has
appropriately
proceeded to
receive
the
information about the genuineness of the
certificate as extracted hereinbefore and the
same has been responded to by the Chief
Medical Officer.
486 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

8. There is no challenge raised to the
certificate issued to the respondent no. 4 by
the petitioner on any substantial material to
support the allegations. This Court is no
medical expert to receive any material and
medically assess the disability certified by the
medical authority. The petitioner could have
approached the authority competent dealing
with the medical board as per any rules therein
but it appears that instead of that the District
Magistrate was handed over a complaint.

9. In such circumstances, the entire
complaint is misdirected and accordingly
we are not inclined to interfere with the
impugned order on any of the grounds
raised. Rejected.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.04.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J.
THE HON'BLE ATTU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13514 of 2014
connected with W.P. No. 17090 of 2014 and
W.P. No. 15122 of 2014

M/S Shokumbhari Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd.
 ....Petitioner
Versus
U.P.P.C.L. & Ors. ............... Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Mayank Agarwal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Nipendra Mishra

U.P. Electricity Reform Act-1999-Section 24(7)-
readwith
U.P.
Electricity
Regulatory
Commission(Conduct & Business) Regulation
2004, Regulation 138, 139-readiwith electricity
supply code 2005-clause-38-Application of
tariff notification- with retrospective effectagainst
statutory
provisions-quashed-with
consequential direction.

Held:Para-8&13
8. A plane reading of the relevant
provisions of law reproduced hereinabove
lead to a clear conclusion that the revision
of tariff as may be promulgated by the
Commission when published and notified by
the U.P. Power Power Corporation shall not
be made applicable retrospectively so long
as the statute permits to do so or the
intention of statute is capable of such an
interpretation. In the present case there is a
clear bar under the statute to enforce the
revision of tariff notification retrospectively.

13. In view of the position of law stated
above, there is merit in the contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioners and
challenge to the retrospective application of
the impugned notifications is liable to
succeed.

Case Law Discussed:
2009 11(SCC) 244

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.)

1. This set of writ petitions involve a
common question of law, as such, the writ
petitions were heard together and are
being decided by a common judgment.

2. We have heard Sri Mayank
Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners
as well as Sri Nripendra Mishra, Sri Chandan
Agrawal and Sri Shivam Yadav learned
counsel appearing for the respondents
Corporation and perused the record.

3. The dispute in all the writ petitions is
confined to the applicability of the revised tariff
as was finally determined by the U.P.
Electricity
Regulatory
Commission
on
19.10.2012 (annexure-2) and published by U.P.
Power Corporation on 23.10.2012 (annexure3) and notified by the Corporation on