Allahabad High Court
Managing Director U.P. State Road ... vs Buddhi Prakash Singh & Anr. (Inre ... on 30 November, 2015
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Attau Rahman Masoodi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?A.F.R.
Court No. - 4
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 562 of 2015
Appellant :- Managing Director U.P. State Road Transport Corp. & 2 Others
Respondent :- Buddhi Prakash Singh & Anr. (Inre 2201 S/S 2006)
Counsel for Appellant :- Alok Kumar Sinha
Counsel for Respondent :- Manish Kumar
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.
Heard Sri Alok Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants, and Sri Manish Kumar for the respondent no.1.
The challenge raised in this appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 30.10.2015 which demonstrates that affidavits had been exchanged between the parties and the matter was being heard by the learned Single Judge.
The recital contained in the impugned order is that appreciating the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the appellant-Managing Director is directed to appear before this court to explain as to why the petitioner is not being paid salary for work being taken from the petitioner with a further clarification that if the petitioner is paid salary, then in that event the Managing Director need not appear in person.
Sri Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the matter could have been disposed of finally as there was no occasion for granting a relief of payment of salary by compelling the attendance of the appellant which was not necessary as affidavits were already on record.
We have considered the submissions raised and the issue of summoning an officer by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is already covered by the two decisions of the Apex Court, one in the case of R.S. Singh Vs. Uttar Pradesh Malaria Nirikshak Sangh & others, 2011 (4) SCC Page 281, and the other decision in the case of State of U.P. & others Vs. Jasvir Singh & others, 2011 (4) SCC Page 288.
Apart from this we may also put on record that such an appearance under the principles of Code of Civil Procedure is also provided for under Order XXVII Rule 6 of C.P.C. which reads as follows :-
"6. Attendance of person able to answer questions relating to suit against Government.- The Court may also, in any case in which the Government pleader is not accompanied by any person on the part of the Government who may be able to answer any material questions relating to the suit, direct the attendance of such a person."
The High Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in order to secure the ends of justice can summon an official and this position has been made clear in the case of Jasvir Singh (supra) by the Apex Court. We also are of the opinion that this Court is not denuded of its authority to summon an authority or official in the interest of justice in the given circumstances of a case while deciding a writ petition.
In the instant case it is not the case of the respondent that the appellant had not put in appearance or no assistance had been given to the Court. Additionally affidavits also appear to have been exchanged as recorded in the impugned order. In the background aforesaid this Court does not find any justification on the facts of the present case for personal appearance of the appellant at the stage of hearing of the petition itself. Even otherwise payment of salary would be a final relief and not by way of any interim compulsion.
In our respectful consideration, we without intending to cause any interference with the ultimate discretion of the court, set aside the order dated 30.10.2015 with a request to the learned Single Judge to dispose of the matter finally.
Order Date :- 30.11.2015
Anand Sri./-
