Randheer Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.

Randheer Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jul 24, 2003

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/505176

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/505176
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: S.S. Jha and ;Chandresh Bhushan, JJ.
Decided On: Jul 24, 2003
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 1784/98
Subject: Civil
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

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

- MADHYA PRADESH NAGAR TATHA GRAM NIVESH ADHINIYAM (23 OF 1973)Section 50(4) Proviso (As inserted by Act of 2004): [Dipak Misra, Krishna Kumar Lahoti & Rajendra Menon, JJ] Preparation of Town Development Scheme Proviso prescribing time limit Held, Object of amendment is to remove hardship caused to citizens and to...

Key legal issue: Civil
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Administrative Tribunals Act - Sections 17; Constitution of India - Article 227

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Randheer Singh

Advocate D.K. Katare, Adv.

Respondent

State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.

Advocate K.B. Chaturvedi, Govt. Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Administrative Tribunals Act - Sections 17; Constitution of India - Article 227
Cases Referred: L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India
Reported In: 2003(3)MPHT432; 2003(4)MPLJ321

Excerpt

- madhya pradesh nagar tatha gram nivesh adhiniyam (23 of 1973)section 50(4) proviso (as inserted by act of 2004): [dipak misra, krishna kumar lahoti & rajendra menon, jj] preparation of town development scheme proviso prescribing time limit held, object of amendment is to remove hardship caused to citizens and to provide time limit to consider objections and suggestion and to provide a deeming clause so that the authority would act in quite promptitude. proviso unequivocal, categorical and unambiguous and does not permit any other kind of construction but a singular one. section 50 (4) proviso (as inserted by act of 2004): [dipak misra, krishn kumar lahoti & rajendra menon, jj] preparation of town development scheme held, proviso is not retrospective. scheme already finalised will not lapse and has to be completed within the time span provided under proviso. no vested right accrues in favour of authority on commencement of process of preparation of scheme, which cannot be impaired by introducing proviso. section 50(4) proviso (as inserted by act of 2004): [dipak misra, krishn kumar lahoti & rajendra menon, jj] preparation of town development scheme held, proviso uses the term shall be deemed to have lapsed. it does not convey that scheme gets automatically lapsed. .....for contempt shall also be subject to judicial scrutiny of high court under article 226/227 of the constitution in spite of remedy of statutory appeal provided by section 19 of the contempt of courts act being available. he submitted that in the light of this judgment, the petition is not maintainable.3. counsel for the petitioner submitted that this judgment is not applicable to the present case as the apex court has held that wherever order of punishment is imposed, then petition under article 227 of the constitution is not maintainable, but where the application is dismissed then this court will have the jurisdiction to hear the petition under article 227 of the constitution challenging the order dismissing the application.4. in the judgment of t. sudhakar prasad (supra) scope of section 17 of the act has been considered and it is held that section 17 is a piece of legislation by reference and powers of the high court are conferred upon the tribunals in the matter of contempt. in view of conferral of powers of the high court to the tribunals orders passed under section 17 of the act will not be subject-matter of power of superintendence under article 227 of the constitution. it is further held that by virtue of section 17 of the act the word 'high court' shall be read as tribunal. therefore, we uphold the objection of the respondents and hold that this petition is not maintainable.5. petition is dismissed as not maintainable.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. Preliminary objection is raised by the Counsel for the respondents that this petition is not maintainable. Admittedly, an application under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act for initiating proceedings for contempt against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 was filed before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal. While exercising powers under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') the Tribunal has dismissed the application. Against the said dismissal, this petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of T. Sudhakar Prasad etc. v. Govt. of A.P. and Ors. [2001 (1) MPJR 1]. He invited attention to Para 17 of the judgment and submitted that such order is not amenable to jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. In Para 17 of the judgment, it is held that the Apex Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India [(1997) 3 SCC 261] has nowhere held that the orders of the Tribunal holding the contemner guilty and punishing for contempt shall also be subject to judicial scrutiny of High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution in spite of remedy of statutory appeal provided by Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act being available. He submitted that in the light of this judgment, the petition is not maintainable.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that this judgment is not applicable to the present case as the Apex Court has held that wherever order of punishment is imposed, then petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is not maintainable, but where the application is dismissed then this Court will have the jurisdiction to hear the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dismissing the application.

4. In the judgment of T. Sudhakar Prasad (supra) scope of Section 17 of the Act has been considered and it is held that Section 17 is a piece of legislation by reference and powers of the High Court are conferred upon the Tribunals in the matter of contempt. In view of conferral of powers of the High Court to the Tribunals orders passed under Section 17 of the Act will not be subject-matter of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. It is further held that by virtue of Section 17 of the Act the word 'High Court' shall be read as Tribunal. Therefore, we uphold the objection of the respondents and hold that this petition is not maintainable.

5. Petition is dismissed as not maintainable.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2003 Same Parties Randheer Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh and ors. Same Subject Civil Same Judge S.S. Jha and ;Chandresh Bhushan, JJ. Acts & Sections Administrative Tribunals Act - Sections 17; Constitution of I...

Civil Hereinafter referred to Administrative Tribunal Preliminary objection contempt of court high court