Anil Kumar Mahto, and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar, and ors.

Anil Kumar Mahto, and ors. vs The State of Bihar, and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Patna Decided Jun 24, 2010

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/913353

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/913353
Court: Patna High Court
Judge: Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J
Decided On: Jun 24, 2010
Case Number: CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.2168 of 2004
Subject: Service

Case Summary

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

[Aftab Alam ; R.M. Lodha, JJ.] - Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 - Sections 8 - Prohibition of certain operations -- The suspected narcotic recovered from the appellant was seized under seizure memo, Exhibit P.22. The trial court by judgment and order dated 9.11.2005 passed in Special Case No.4/20...

Key legal issue: Service
Acts & sections: Village Level Workers Appointment Rules, 1987 - Rule 3

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Anil Kumar Mahto, and ors.

Advocate M/S. Chitranjan Sinha; S.B.K.Mangalam, Advs.

Respondent

The State of Bihar, and ors.

Advocate Mr. S S Mishra; M/S. Shyama Prasad Mukherji; Shanti Pratap, Advs.

Legal References

Acts: Village Level Workers Appointment Rules, 1987 - Rule 3

Excerpt

[aftab alam ; r.m. lodha, jj.] - narcotics drugs & psychotropic substance act, 1985 - sections 8 - prohibition of certain operations -- the suspected narcotic recovered from the appellant was seized under seizure memo, exhibit p.22. the trial court by judgment and order dated 9.11.2005 passed in special case no.4/2005 held all the three accused, including the appellant guilty of offences punishable under sections 8/21(b) of the ndps act and sentenced them as noted above. against the judgment of the trial court, the appellant preferred criminal appeal no.2511/2005 before the high court. the high court dismissed both the appeals by judgment and order dated april 17, 2008. the appellant alone has come in appeal against the judgment of the high court. the present appeal arises out of the judgment dated 10.12.2007 passed by the learned single judge of the high court of allahabad (lucknow bench) whereby the learned single judge has dismissed the tax revision filed by the appellant under section 11 of the u. p. trade tax act (hereinafter referred to as "the act") impugning the judgment dated 14.8.2007 passed by the trade tax tribunal, lucknow rejecting the second appeal of the appellant/assessee. the interest charge on the tax could not have been charged under section 8(1) as the case falls under section 8(1b). as in the present case the tax becomes admittedly payable once it has been held that the tax is payable under the act, the interest would be payable in terms of subsection (1) of section 8 of the act and not in terms of subsection (1b) of section 8 of the act. this court in the case of commissioner of sales tax v. qureshi crucible centre, 1993 supp (3) scc 495 has held that where a dealer fails to pay tax at the correct rate because he claimed not to know the revision in the rate, the dealer remains liable to pay interest at a higher rate, penal rate under section 8 (1) from the date when the tax became due and payable. .....also filed a writ which was cwjc no. 10076 of 2000 (annexure-20). petitioner was one deo kumar singh with some others. learned single judge while recording his opinion in the order dated 10.10.2001 categorically came to the view that 1987 rule known as village level workers appointment rules, 1987, envisages appointment of candidates from the district. this was on plain reading of rule 3, coupled with a decision which had been rendered in cwjc no. 2425 of 1998. a categorical direction was issued to the district magistrate, madhubani for a fresh consideration of the matter and preparation of select list in accordance with 1987 rules meaning thereby that preference to the candidates from the district had to be given.4. an lpa by certain interested candidates came to be filed challenging the learned single judge's order contained in annexure-20. lpa no. is 1448 of 2001. appellant was one surendra kumar singh and another. the appeal was heard and it was permitted to be withdrawn vide order dated 24.7.2002 (annexure-21) on the ground that the appellants were not made parties before the learned single judge and therefore they had liberty to either file a review or to file a fresh writ application. .5. an impression has been given to the court during the course of submission that present petitioners were party to the said lpa and present writ application has been filed on their behalf in light of observation of the lpa bench and that is why the present writ application was being maintained and argued.6. a deeper look into the matter reveals that the present petitioners had absolutely nothing to do with the said lpa and now it is accepted at the bar that they were not party to the said lpa and present writ application has been filed on the basis of the observation of the learned division bench that since those appellants were not made party and heard by the learned single judge they had a right to file a review or a writ in their own right. that observation has.....

Full Judgment

1. Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J There are five petitioners before this Court. According to them, they had successfully made it to the select list or panel of candidates, who were to be appointed on the post of VLW in the district of Madhubani. The advertisement in question was issued way back on 27.12.1993 and there were many a candidates including the present petitioners. The 1993 advertisement culminated into final selection, according to the petitioners, only on 27.1.2001 as would be evident from Annexure-15 to the writ application. The present petitioners belong to other districts of the State and not to the district of Madhubani. This fact has relevance to the present dispute. When the joining of these petitioners was not taken, they decided to file a civil writ namely, CWJC No. 7348 of 2002. Learned single Judge disposed of the writ application vide order dated 25.11.2002, which is Annexure-11 to the writ application.

2. Pursuant to the said observation and

direction, contained in Annexure-11, a speaking order contained in Annexure-16 came to be passed by the learned District Magistrate and the present petitioners were ousted from the panel of selected candidates. The primary reason for the ouster of the present petitioners is that they did not belong to the district of Madhubani and in terms of the observation of the High Court passed in CWJC No. 7348 of 2002 read with rules relating to appointment of VLW, which is known as 1987 Rules and has been annexed as Annexure-19, only candidates from the district had to be given preference in matters of appointment to the post of VLW. The present writ application has been filed challenging Annexure-16.

3. Another dimension is that there was other spate of writ applications and cases which came to be filed before the High Court on the issue of appointment or non-appointment. Some unsuccessful candidates also filed a writ which was CWJC No. 10076 of 2000 (Annexure-20). Petitioner was one Deo Kumar Singh with some others. Learned single Judge while recording his opinion in the order dated 10.10.2001 categorically came to the view that 1987 Rule known as Village Level Workers Appointment Rules, 1987, envisages appointment of candidates from the district. This was on plain reading of Rule 3, coupled with a decision which had been rendered in CWJC No. 2425 of 1998. A categorical direction was issued to the District Magistrate, Madhubani for a fresh consideration of the matter and preparation of select list in accordance with 1987 Rules meaning thereby that preference to the candidates from the district had to be given.

4. An LPA by certain interested candidates came to be filed challenging the learned single Judge's order contained in Annexure-20. LPA No. is 1448 of 2001. Appellant was one Surendra Kumar Singh and another. The appeal was heard and it was permitted to be withdrawn vide order dated 24.7.2002 (Annexure-21) on the ground that the appellants were not made parties before the learned single Judge and therefore they had liberty to either file a review or to file a fresh writ application. .

5. An impression has been given to the Court during the course of submission that present petitioners were party to the said LPA and present writ application has been filed on their behalf in light of observation of the LPA Bench and that is why the present writ application was being maintained and argued.

6. A deeper look into the matter reveals that the present petitioners had absolutely nothing to do with the said LPA and now it is accepted at the bar that they were not party to the said LPA and present writ application has been filed on the basis of the observation of the learned Division Bench that since those appellants were not made party and heard by the learned single Judge they had a right to file a review or a writ in their own right. That observation has given the present petitioners a right to file and maintain the present writ.

7. This Court is constrained to record that such a submission is not acceptable at the bar since it is not supported by any procedure or law in this regard. The observation of the Division Bench is restricted to the party to the dispute and it would not mean that any person or every person has liberty to file writ application challenging the decision of the learned single Judge, more so before yet another single Judge without there being direction by a superior Bench. The effort on the part of the petitioners to get the matter re-heard or to persuade this Bench to adjudicate and decide on the merits of a decision rendered by yet another single Judge is totally misplaced. It is a mistaken advice or misplaced strategy on the part of the petitioners and it is for them to ponder over the same. The Court would not like to further record its opinion on the conduct of the petitioners.

8. The Court categorically records that this Bench has no authority to sit in appeal over a decision which has already been rendered by another single Judge. Since before the Division Bench in the LPA case these petitioners were not party, the observation of the Division Bench does not help them in maintaining the present writ application.

9. The present writ application is totally misplaced and it is dismissed.

10. Petitioners are cautioned and advised to be more careful in future.

Same Court & Year Patna · 2010 Same Parties Anil Kumar Mahto, and ors. vs The State of Bihar, and ors. Same Subject Service Same Judge Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J Acts & Sections Village Level Workers Appointment Rules, 1987 - Rule 3

Service