Shayama Nand Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors. - Court Judgment |
| Constitution |
| Jharkhand High Court |
| Sep-02-2004 |
| WP (S) No. 4507 of 2004 |
| S.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J. |
| [2004(4)JCR483(Jhr)] |
| Bihar Re-organisation Act, 2000 - Sections 72(2); Constitution of India - Article 221 |
| Shayama Nand Ram |
| Union of India (Uoi) and ors. |
| Shubha Jha, Adv. |
| J.P. Gupta, Sr. SCCG and; Ritu Kumar, Adv. |
- constitution of india. articles 12 & 226: [m. karpaga vinayagam, c.j., narendra nath tiwari & d.p.singh, jj] writ petition - maintainability - whether state co-operative milk producers federation ltd., is a state within meaning of article 12 ? - held, from perusal of relevant rules of byelaws, it is clear that state government has no role to play either in policy decision for raising funds for federation or its expenditure and thus have no financial control. further there is nothing to indicate that government has any functional and administrative control over federation. state government has no role to play in matter of appointment of any of officials of federation including managing director. federation is totally independent in all respects and in no way subservient to state government in conduct of its business. federation in no way can be termed as agency of state government and does not come within meaning of article 12 of constitution. writ petitions against federation is not maintainable. s.j. mukhopadhaya, a.c.j.1. this writ application has been preferred by petitioner against the order no. 6 (b)/2004. dated 29th july, 2004 issued by the central government under sub-section (2) of section 72 of the bihar re-organisation act, 2000, whereby and whereunder. the petitioner along with some others have been allocated the state of bihar.2. according to petitioner, he is to retire from the services of the state on 30.9.2004 i.e., in this month and he should not be asked to go back and join duty in the state of bihar. if the petitioner joins the state ol' bihar then, in such case, he may lace difficulty in drawing pension and other retrial benefits. but, such prayer cannot be accepted, there being no illegality in the order dated 29th july, 2004. if the petitioner intends to continue in the state ofjharkhand may represent the central government.this application is disposed of.
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.
1. This writ application has been preferred by petitioner against the order No. 6 (B)/2004. dated 29th July, 2004 issued by the Central Government under sub-section (2) of Section 72 of the Bihar Re-organisation Act, 2000, whereby and whereunder. the petitioner along with some others have been allocated the State of Bihar.
2. According to petitioner, he is to retire from the services of the State on 30.9.2004 i.e., in this month and he should not be asked to go back and join duty in the State of Bihar. If the petitioner joins the State ol' Bihar then, in such case, he may lace difficulty in drawing pension and other retrial benefits. But, such prayer cannot be accepted, there being no illegality in the order dated 29th July, 2004. If the petitioner intends to continue in the State ofJharkhand may represent the Central Government.
This application is disposed of.