Sandhya Bhatt Vs. State of Uttarakhand and ors.

Sandhya Bhatt vs State of Uttarakhand and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Uttaranchal Decided Feb 23, 2010

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/902504

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/902504
Court: Uttaranchal High Court
Judge: J.S. Khehar, C.J. and; Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
Decided On: Feb 23, 2010
Subject: Service

Case Summary

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

- MINING Direction to State Government to consider all applications afresh in light of interpretation of Section 11 of the Act and Rules 35, 59 and 60 of MC Rules Main issue : Whether the State Government's recommendation dated 06.12.2004 and the proceedings of the Chief Minister are contrary to the provisions of...

Key legal issue: Service

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sandhya Bhatt

Respondent

State of Uttarakhand and ors.

Excerpt

.....dated 15.03.2003.[para 42] d) whether rule 35 of the mc rules justify the recommendation of the state government in favour of the respondents-jindal and kalyani -- as discussed above, rule 35 only permits the state government to take additional factor of the "end use" of the minerals and not the existing investments made by the applicants. moreover, relying on the existing investments made, the respondents also does not satisfy the requirements under section 11(3)(d) which talks solely about proposed investments to be made and not the existing ones.[para 44] e) whether the criterion of "captive consumption" referred to in tata iron and steel co. ltd. vs. union of india, (1996) 9 scc 709, have any application in this case despite not being one of the factors referred to in section 11 (3) of the mmdr act or rule 35 of the mc rules -- we have already held that section 11(3) specifies the matter relevant for purposes of second proviso to section 11(2). we also referred to the committee's report. in accordance with the recommendation in the said report, section 11(3)(d) was added as part of the substitution of section 11 in the year 1999. sub-section (d) provides that "the investment which the applicant proposes to make in the mines and in the industry based on minerals" and it speaks about investment proposed to be made and not past investments. thus it confines the concept of "captive consumption of minerals to proposed investment and not past investments". even the residuary clauses in section 11(3)(e) are limited to "matters as may be prescribed", which would necessarily mean matters prescribed by rules. this is fortified by decision of this court in bsnl ltd. & anr. vs. bpl mobile cellular ltd. & ors., (2008) 13 scc 597, para 45.[para 35] f) whether factors such as the past commitments by the state government to applicants who have already set up steel plants, matter for consideration for grant of lease despite the mmdr act and the mc rules constituting a..........disposing of the writ petition (ss) no. 469 of 2008 is subject matter of challenge at the hands of the appellant.4. the solitary contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is, that in the writ petition the appellant had satisfactorily explained the delay in approaching this court. needless to mention that the impugned order was passed on 8.11.2000, whereas the writ petition under reference was filed on 18.6.2008. delay in approaching this court, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, should have been viewed in the background of the factual position depicted in paragraphs 9 to 11 of the writ petition. paragraphs 9 to 11 of the writ petition are being extracted hereunder:9. that the petitioner joined on 8-12-2000 in pursuance of the order dated 8-11-2000, however, as the services of the petitioner were in a project, as such, the services of the petitioner were transferred to the state of uttarakhand. true copy of the letter dated 6-2-2001 by which the petitioner was asked to join in the state of uttarakhand, is being filed herewith and is marked as annexure no. 6 to this writ petition.10. that the petitioner represented to the authorities in the state of u.p. as well as in the state of uttarakhand for the cancellation of the impugned punishment given to the petitioner vide order dated 8-11-2000, however, no heed was paid by the respondents. true copy of the representations submitted by the petitioner on various dates to the respondents are being filed herewith collectively and are marked as annexure no. 7 to this writ petition.11. that lastly the petitioner submitted a detailed representation to the respondent no. 1 through proper channel on 17-12-2007. true copy of the representation date 17-12-2007 is being filed herewith and is marked as annexure no. 8 to this writ petition.having perused the averments made in paragraphs 9 to 11, we are satisfied that the learned single judge was fully justified in dismissing the writ petition.....

Full Judgment

1. The appellant was proceeded against departmentally, whereupon by order dated 7.9.1999 her services were terminated. The appellant assailed the aforesaid order on the administrative side, whereupon by an order dated 8.11.2000, the termination order was revoked, and in its place, the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect was imposed on the appellant.

2. The order dated 8.11.2000 was impugned by the appellant by approaching this Court through Writ Petition (SS) No. 469 of 2008. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, for reasons of delay and latches, by an order dated 19.6.2008.

3. The order dated 19.6.2008 disposing of the Writ Petition (SS) No. 469 of 2008 is subject matter of challenge at the hands of the appellant.

4. The solitary contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant is, that in the writ petition the appellant had satisfactorily explained the delay in approaching this Court. Needless to mention that the impugned order was passed on 8.11.2000, whereas the writ petition under reference was filed on 18.6.2008. Delay in approaching this Court, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, should have been viewed in the background of the factual position depicted in paragraphs 9 to 11 of the writ petition. Paragraphs 9 to 11 of the writ petition are being extracted hereunder:

9. That the petitioner joined on 8-12-2000 in pursuance of the order dated 8-11-2000, however, as the services of the petitioner were in a project, as such, the services of the petitioner were transferred to the State of Uttarakhand. True copy of the letter dated 6-2-2001 by which the petitioner was asked to join in the State of Uttarakhand, is being filed herewith and is marked as ANNEXURE No. 6 to this writ petition.

10. That the petitioner represented to the authorities in the State of U.P. as well as in the State of Uttarakhand for the cancellation of the impugned punishment given to the petitioner vide order dated 8-11-2000, however, no heed was paid by the respondents. True copy of the representations submitted by the petitioner on various dates to the respondents are being filed herewith collectively and are marked as ANNEXURE No. 7 to this writ petition.

11. That lastly the petitioner submitted a detailed representation to the respondent No. 1 through proper channel on 17-12-2007. True copy of the representation date 17-12-2007 is being filed herewith and is marked as ANNEXURE No. 8 to this writ petition.

Having perused the averments made in paragraphs 9 to 11, we are satisfied that the learned Single Judge was fully justified in dismissing the writ petition on account of delay and latches, inasmuch as, the delay sought to be explained through the averments made in paragraphs extracted hereinabove, is only on the basis of repeated representations made by the appellant. It is by now well- settled, that repeated representations cannot be taken into consideration while examining the issue of delay and latches, nor do they constitute a valid basis for explaining away delay in approaching a Court. Since the petitioner did not rely on any other material besides repeated representations made by him to explain the delay in approaching this Court, we are satisfied that the learned Single Judge was fully justified in not accepting the explanation tendered by the petitioner.

5. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 19.6.2008 disposing of the Writ Petition (SS) No. 469 of 2008.

Same Court & Year Uttaranchal · 2010 Same Parties Sandhya Bhatt vs State of Uttarakhand and ors. Same Subject Service Same Judge J.S. Khehar, C.J. and; Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

Service