Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 15892 MP
Judgement Date : 1 December, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI)
ON THE 1 st OF DECEMBER, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 9895 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
S.P. PANDEY S/O SHRI H.B. PANDEY OCCUPATION:
SUPERINTENDENT CGST 191, PUSHPRATHNA AVENUE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI AWADHESH KUMAR PANDEY, COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
1. THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BENCH JABALPUR THROUGH THE DY.
REGISTRAR OM SHANTI CHOWK KATANGA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH REVENUE
SECRETARY NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI (DELHI)
3. DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY AND THE CHAIRMAN
CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND
CUSTOMS NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI (DELHI)
4. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER CGST BHOPAL ZONE,
CGST BHAWAN , ADMINISTRATIVE AREA ,
ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. T H E PR / COMMISSIONER CGST, MANIKBAGH
PALACE, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. THE PR / COMMISSIONER MANIKABAGH
PALACE, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. THE PR / COMMISSIONER CUSTOMS, CGST,
(AUDIT), 5 T H FLOOR, OMEGA TOWERS, VIJAY
NAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
2
8. THE PR / COMMISSIONER CUSTOMS, B-ZONE,
3RD FLOOR, 12/27 AND 12/28, VILLAGE-
PIPLIAKUMAR, NIPANIA, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
9. THE PR / COMMISSIONER CGST 29, BHARATPURI,
ADMINISTRATIVE ZONE, UJJAIN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
10. THE SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER OFFICE OF
CONTROLLER OF ACCOUNTS, CBIC, AGCR
BUILDING, IP ESTATE, NEW DELHI (DELHI)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI HIMANSHU JOSHI , ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR
RESPONDENT NO. 2 & 10.
(SHRI PRASANNA PRASAD, COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT 4 TO 9)
This petition is coming on for admission this day, JUSTICE VIVEK
RUSIA passed the following:
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 11.03.2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in Original Application No. 200/00955/2021 whereby the same has been dismissed without going into the merits of the case. However, liberty has been granted to the applicants to file a proper and separate original application in the proper form.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of the 33 applicants in aforementioned original applicant, 12 applicants have jointly filed a separate application and have been granted the relief by the Tribunal in the light of the judgment passed by the Madras High Court in case of M.Subramaniam vs. Union of India & Ors.in W.P.No. 13225/2010 and the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 3768/2018 in order to maintain parity. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the subsequent original application filed by the applicants, the pleadings and relief were same as pleaded and claimed in the
original application filed earlier.
We do not find any error in the pleadings as well in the relief claimed by the applicants. The intention of the applicants are clear that they wanted the same benefit which as been granted by the High Court of Madras and Principal Bench of the Tribunal in the aforementioned cases. Hence, in our opinion the Tribunal has wrongly dismissed the original application.
Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside. The original application No. 200/00955/2021 is restored. However, the petitioner is directed to delete the names of those applicants who have subsequently filed the original application. For the remaining applicants, the original application be entertained on merits.
With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
JUDGE JUDGE
vidya
SREEVIDYA
2022.12.02
16:22:01 +05'30'
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!