Exclusive HOLI Discounts!
Get Courses and Combos at Upto 50% OFF!
Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Supreme court's observation

Guest (Querist) 16 October 2012 This query is : Resolved 
"The question whether the URC can be treated as an instrumentality of
the State does not fall for consideration as that aspect has not been
considered by CAT or the High Court. Apparently, on that score alone we
could have dismissed the appeal"
What exactly does this mean?
This is excerpts from the Supreme Court of confusion's order on Case No 3495 of 2005 decided on 28 Apr 2009 .
ajay sethi (Expert) 16 October 2012
it appears that neither the high court nor CAt has considered the issue as to whether URC falls within the definition of state .the supreme court held that on that ground alone it could have dismissed the appeal .

if you are unable to understand the order passed by supreme court your lawyer will clarify and explain the order to you
R.K Nanda (Expert) 16 October 2012
take help of lawyer.
Guest (Querist) 30 November 2012
PAC headed by Dr Joshy asked the Min of Def to submit an affidavit on the recommendations of the CAG on Canteen Stores Department that URCs are the exclusive Retail Outlets of CSD and hence be brought under the ambit of CAG's audit. After much delay Min of Def has conceded to this demand of CAG. Does this mean URCs are instrumentality of the State as was not agitated by the SC 3 judges bench on a civil case No 3495 of 2005 decided on 28 Apr 2009? That ruling was in fact stretched too far by the JAG Br Army and deduced that hence the URCs are not instrumentality of the State and hence out of RTI Act 2005. This argument had so far been upheld even by Hon'blre Sri ML Sharma IC/CIC in his orders upholding denial of info on URCs in almost all cases.
Raj Kumar Makkad (Expert) 02 December 2012
As per original query raised by you read with subsequent clarification, it appears that Hon'ble Supreme court is of the opinion that this aspect is required to be considered that whether URCs should be treated as State instrumentality or not. This question has still been left open.
Guest (Querist) 02 December 2012
In that scenario can CAG demand inclusion of URCs as ext.com of CSD Min of Def GOI while doing performance audit? Is the CAG overstretching its limit?
Raj Kumar Makkad (Expert) 02 December 2012
CAG cannot perform audit of CSDs until those are declared State instrumentality
Guest (Querist) 02 December 2012
Agent Vinod the Rai khus hua.
Raj Kumar Makkad (Expert) 04 December 2012
The replies are not given for anyone khush huwa or not huwa.
Guest (Expert) 04 December 2012
I wonder to know if respected Shri Haridas Mandal 'khush hua', as I have seen in the past only in rare case with the opinions/views of experts Mr. Mandal 'khush hua' hoga.
Guest (Querist) 04 December 2012
In 2008 while still in uniform i was confronted with a question whether CDA stsff/ est are eligible to avail CSD facility? Can they run their URCs for their employees who are not Troops? What is the authority for them to rent Def Accomodation given to them for exclusive use as office for such URCs? And at the end can they distribute the profits thus accrued to each posted civilian govt employee proportionate to their basic salaries recd from govt of India? It was happening in one of the CDA offices at Meerut . Profits were being distributed to the employees by proper cheques as dividends.You are all experts in your own fields and I do claim to be one in my sphere.
I raised the query to the office of CAG in the form of a RTI query asking then to confirm knowledge of running of URCs by CDA staff /est? Knowledge of renting govt accn for the purpose of running URCs by such il-eligible category? Knowledge of distribution of dividends to govt employees?
I have their answer in black and white. That was in the year 2008. The office of the CAG and the Director Gen of Def Audit simply bypassed the issue stating that URCs are REGIMENTAL INSTITUTES and not being audited by them. Hence such presumptive questions need not be answered by this office.And the reply has approval of the CAG. I have taken diff path and still to file my PIL in the Supreme Court as I was advised by some one to wait for the affidavit being filed by the Min of Def on the same issue.Those who are in the know but have not read the performance audit by the CAG in 2009 , PAC's Recommendation in 2010 and the affidavit now filed by the min of def it is the office of the CAG which was reluctant to include URCs while conducting performance audit of Canteen Stores Department the whole sale agency for those 3700 odd URCs. In their letter to me they had confirmed their position as such. What happened then? Why they insisted that URCs being the retail outlets be included in their performance audit? On 28 Apr 2009 Dr Prasayat J wrote the judgement on behalf of the 3 judges bench of the SC on a civil case No 3495 of 2005 which over ruled a dozen High court Supreme Court orders to state that employees of the URCs are not govt or CSD employees. It said further that the question of instrumentality was not taken up either by the High court or by the Tribunals hence not agitated at this instant.That Dr Prasayat J retired 10 days later delivering the historical judgement.
If the intention of CAG was to get the URCs audited contradictory to the views expressed in the year 2008 in reply against my RTI query it was the office of the CAG who would have filed a curative petition or a presidential reference whatever you experts in the fields of law think fit, to clarify first on the issue of URCs being Instrumentality of the state . In its performance report submitted just after the SC verdict they never mentioned it in their report to the PAC. There are many way to establish that URCs being fed by CSD being run on the defe accomodation being run by men in uniform or civilian on govt pay roll are of course instrumentality of the state but I avoid that discussion here as I am not an expert in law of the land.
Now I think I have provided food for thought to Sri PS Dhingra who is very very sarcastic in his expression towards me.
My PIL will be submitted shortly. I have taken help from myriad people experts in their own fields including members of this august forum. I do ack their contribution. I do ack being not so optimistic about the role of CAG as a neutral Institution. But that;s my private opinion . Would some body now who have fashioned deleting of my post regarding codifying of Bail amount by a JUDGE be reinserted. Somebody even have blocked my BLOGs on various aspects sometimes critical on lawyers fraternity as well.
Raj Kumar Makkad (Expert) 04 December 2012
It is highly strange that on the one hand you seek help from lawyers and on the other hand and moreover simultaneously accuse them. This is not the way to seek help from law experts who devote their time, energy and resources free of cost for the mankind.

If you cant be tankful towards anyone, don't accuse them. Your uniform might have taught you at least this sense to adopt.
Guest (Querist) 05 December 2012
Insult or may be presumptive insult is a double aged weapon and your views are a little biased as your words on the BAIL issue was not kind to a person who served the country in uniform for long thirty years without compromising of secular principles of our beloved country. I am critical of the a set of lawyers who and their forum who should have some CSR(Corporate Social Responsibilities ) and not bragging about it. Now pl get my blogs and my post on Bail reinserted.
Raj Kumar Makkad (Expert) 09 December 2012
I never remain biased as falsely alleged by you against me. Had we experts not kind towards mankind the common man, such free of cost service would have been possible and moreover, I do not require certificate from anyone including you because I do believe in God and this service of mine is service to God.
Guest (Querist) 09 December 2012
Who is giving free service to whom? Name one individual who has told his advocate to fight the case based on the Expert's advice obtained free of cost(As ordinary man can't fight a case without engaging an advocate)he/she simply laugh and charges extra for such rubbish advice.
You don't need a certificate very fine. So do I.
Raj Kumar Makkad (Expert) 09 December 2012
Every experts on this site provide free of cost advice and Admin of this site knows this fact and we need not to tell you more than this.
Guest (Querist) 09 December 2012
And then that admin usurp the divine right to delete my post and block my blogs free of cost..


You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .


Click here to login now



Similar Resolved Queries :