Income Tax Contingent Employees ... vs A.N. Jha
2021 Latest Caselaw 17195 Raj

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
                 D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2893/2019

1.     Income Tax Contingent Employees Union, Income-Tax
       Office,    Jodhpur.     (Association          Of    Casual    Labours    Of
       Income-Tax, Rajasthan Region).
2.     Jagdish Solanki S/o Shri Lal Chand,, Aged About 42
       Years, R/o Babu Laxman Singh Colony, Outside Third
       Pole, Mahamandir, Jodhpur- 342001, (A Member Of The
       Income-Tax Contingent Employees Union).
                                                                    ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
1.     A.n.   Jha,     Finance       Secretary,         Ministry     Of   Finance,
       Department Of Revenue, Government Of India, New Delhi
       110001.
2.     P.k. Ambastha, Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Paota,
       C-Road, Jodhpur- 342010.
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. TC Gupta
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Sunil Bhandari



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

                                 Judgment

17/11/2021


BY THE COURT: (PER HON'BLE JAIN,J.)

The present petition is preferred by the petitioner Income-

Tax Contingent Employees Union (hereinafter referred to as

"ITCEU"), Income-Tax Office, Jodhpur and one Shri Jagdish

Solanki claiming himself to be a member of the said Union.

By way of the said petition, order dated 16.11.2018 passed

by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Bench, Jodhpur in

(2 of 3) [CW-2893/2019]

contempt petition No. 18/2017 is challenged which is marked as

Annexure/1.

At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent has raised

a preliminary objection pertaining to incorporation of petitioner

No. 1 and authorization/resolution passed by the members of the

Union and authorization given to the Advocate. The respondent

counsel has also brought to the knowledge of the Court judgment

passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in DBCWP No.

3798/2019 passed on 09.7.2019 wherein relying upon the Rule 7

of the Central Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1993

(hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1993) and after hearing

the arguments, this Court has held that there was non compliance

of Rule 7 and in absence of proper and adequate authorization the

petition was dismissed.

The counsel for the petitioner was specifically called upon by

the Court to furnish incorporation certificate of the (ITCEU) i.e.

petitioner No. 1, a valid and registered resolution passed by the

members to agitate the issue but in spite of so, neither the

petitioner counsel was able to reflect from the record the so called

resolution and incorporation certificate nor was able to submit the

same during the course of hearing. The `Vakalatnama' drawn in

favour of the petitioner's counsel was also not approved by the

stamp of petitioner No. 1 or its office bearer. On perusal of

Annexure/1 i.e. order of the Tribunal dated 16.11.2018, it is also

clear that the petitioner did not supply the name of the effected

individuals to the respondent department to enable them to

process claim and make payments wherever due, therefore, the

(3 of 3) [CW-2893/2019]

claim of the petitioner in the present petition that order dated

12.5.2016 passed in OA No. 325/2015 was not complied with does

not appear to be correct on facts as well as in law.

Rule 7 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Rule of Practice,

1993 is reproduced here under:-

"Production of authorisation for and on behalf of an Association :- Where an application/pleading or other proceeding purported to be filed is by an Association, the person, or persons who sign/(s)/verify (ies) the same shall produce along with such application, etc., for verification by the Registry, a true copy of the resolution of the Association empowering such persons(s) to do so: Provided the Registrar may at any time call upon the party to produce such further materials as he deems fit for satisfying himself about due authorisaton."

In light of the preliminary objections raised by the

respondent counsel pertaining to maintainability of the present

petition for lack of the proper authorization and following the

dictum of this Court in DBCWP No. 3798/2019, whereby in terms

of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1993, proper authorization/resolution is

mandatorily required.

On analysis of Rule 7 and the petitioner's failing in furnishing

valid resolution/authorization, we are of the view that the present

petition is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed.

                                   (SAMEER JAIN),J                                           (SANDEEP MEHTA),J


                                    ns. 22-1/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)