Sushil Dixit Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Sushil Dixit vs State of U.P. and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Nov 20, 2008

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/492613

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/492613
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: S.P. Mehrotra, J.
Decided On: Nov 20, 2008
Subject: Labour and Industrial

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 [C.A. No. 1/1894]. Section 4; [Sushil Harkauli, S.K. Singh & Krishna Murari, JJ] Acquisition of land Held, Court cannot issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the State Authorities to acquire a particular land. Land acquisition is not purely ministerial act to be performed by executive No...

Key legal issue: Labour and Industrial

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sushil Dixit

Advocate Sri. S.M. Ali

Respondent

State of U.P. and ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred: M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.
Reported In: (2009)IILLJ208All

Excerpt

.....exercise of that power to invite the attention of the executive to any public purpose and the need for land for meeting that public purpose and to require the executive to take a decision, even a reasoned decision, with regard to the same in accordance with the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a reasonable time frame. however, the power of the court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. - 2. the deputy labour commissioner, jhansi region, jhansi will consider the said objections, and after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to the respondent no......within a month from today, the petitioner will file detailed objections before the respondent no. 2 (deputy labour commissioner, jhansi region, jhansi) alongwith a certified copy of this order.2. the deputy labour commissioner, jhansi region, jhansi will consider the said objections, and after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to the respondent no. 4 (rajesh), pass appropriate order in accordance with law expeditiously preferably, within a period of two months from the date of filing of the said objections alongwith certified copy of this order before him.7. for a period of three months or till the disposal of the objections of the petitioner by the respondent no. 2, whichever is earlier, proceedings pursuant to the recovery certificate dated january 21,2008 (annexure 1 to the writ petition) will remain stayed.8. in the event of default on the part of the petitioner in filing the objections alongwith certified copy of this order before the respondent no. 21 within the period aforementioned, the interim order granted above will stand automatically vacated.9. the writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the above directions.it is made clear that this court has not adjudicated upon the claim of the petitioner on merits.

Full Judgment

S.P. Mehrotra, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the Recovery Certificate dated January 21, 2008 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition).

2. It is, inter alia, stated in the writ petition that the petitioner is owner of Shivani Restaurant, Orai situated at Gate of Konch Bus Stand, Qrai; and that Rajesh (respondent No. 4) is working in the said Restaurant since July, 2007.

It is, inter alia, further stated in the writ petition that the petitioner received the said Recovery Certificate dated January 21, 2008 from the Amin in the month of May, 2008. Copy of the said Recovery Certificate dated January 21, 2008 has been filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition.

3. A perusal of the said Recovery Certificate shows that the same refers to a Notice No. 5515 dated October 22, 2007 whereby the petitioner was required to deposit an amount of Rs. 20,000/- within 15 days as compensation on account of employment of a chila labour, namely, the said Rajesh in the establishment of the petitioner in view of the judgment dated December 10, 1996 passed by the Supreme Court in Writ Petition No. 465/1986. M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.

4. It is averted in paragraph 4 of the writ petition that before issuance of the said Recovery Certificate, the petitioner was neither served with any show-cause notice nor was any statement of the respondent No. 4 (Rajesh) or his parents was recorded nor was the petitioner ever required to file any objection before issuance of the said Recovery Certificate.

5. I have heard Sri S.M. Ali, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3, and perused the record.

In view of the nature of the order which is being passed below in the present writ petition it is not necessary to call for Counter Affidavit from the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 or to issue notice to the respondent No. 4.

6. In view of the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner-on the basis of the averments made in the writ petition, that no show-cause notice or opportunity was given to the petitioner to file any objections before the issuance of the Recovery Certificate dated January 21, 2008, I am of the opinion that the interest of justice would be sub-served in case the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

1. Within a month from today, the petitioner will file detailed objections before the respondent No. 2 (Deputy Labour Commissioner, Jhansi Region, Jhansi) alongwith a certified copy of this order.

2. The Deputy Labour Commissioner, Jhansi Region, Jhansi will consider the said objections, and after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to the respondent No. 4 (Rajesh), pass appropriate order in accordance with law expeditiously preferably, within a period of two months from the date of filing of the said objections alongwith certified copy of this order before him.

7. For a period of three months or till the disposal of the objections of the petitioner by the respondent No. 2, whichever is earlier, proceedings pursuant to the Recovery Certificate dated January 21,2008 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) will remain stayed.

8. In the event of default on the part of the petitioner in filing the objections alongwith certified copy of this order before the respondent No. 21 within the period aforementioned, the interim order granted above will stand automatically vacated.

9. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the above directions.

It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated upon the claim of the petitioner on merits.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2008 Same Parties Sushil Dixit vs State of U.P. and ors. Same Subject Labour and Industrial Same Judge S.P. Mehrotra, J.

Labour and Industrial In accordance with law Certified copy supreme court Interim order inter alia As well as