LIVE Online Course on NDPS by Riva Pocha and Adv. Taraq Sayed. Starting from 24th May. Register Now!!
The Indian Constitution Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

  • The Rajasthan HC has, in a case titled Income Tax Contingent Employees Union vs Union of India and ors. has held that a writ petition filed in representative capacity without authorisation or a resolution to that effect is not maintainable.
  • In the instant case, a writ petition was filed on behalf of a Union called Income Tax Contingent Employees Union. A man named Kamal Prasad signed an affidavit in support of the writ petition, claiming to be a Member and an authorised representative of the Union.
  • After this, an affidavit was filed by the Counsel for the respondents claiming that the writ petition should be dismissed for want of proper authorization.
  • Further, it was the respondent’s contention that no list of casual labourers who claim to be the members of the Union had been annexed to the writ petition. The respondent also claimed that no proper authorisation or resolution has been passed by the Union for the purpose of filing the original application, much less the present writ petition.
  • To support his claim, the respondent relied upon the decision of the Court in Income Tax Contingent Employees Union and anr vs. A.N. Jha and anr. and also in Income tax Contingent Employees Union vs. Union of India and ors. wherein the Court had held that such writ petitions are not maintainable for want of proper authorisation.
  • The Counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, argued that on 11-4-2018, Mr, Kamal Pal had been authorised to plead matters on behalf of the union. He also claimed that the writ petition had been presented for proper authorisation and was filed after the authorisation had been obtained.
  • The Court, in the instant case, found that the MOM (minutes of meeting) filed by the petitioners does not contain signatures of any of the members of the Union. It was also observed by the Court that a list of the members of the Union has not been annexed to the writ petition as well.
  • The Court also observed that Jagdish Solanki, who claimed to be the President of the Union, who says that he authorised Kamal Pal to file the matters on behalf of the Union, has not supported his claim by any resolution passed by the Union which authorised him to further authorise Kamal Pal to file the Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal or the present writ petition.
  • Thus, the Court observed that the writ petition had indeed been filed without proper authorisation and dismissed the same.
"Loved reading this piece by Shweta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"




Tags :

  Views  79  Report



Comments
img
Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query