Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Income- Tax Contigent Employees ... vs Union Of India on 13 January, 2022
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16777/2019
1. Income- Tax Contigent Employees Union, Income-Tax
Office, Jodhpur. (Registered Association Of Casual Labours
Of Income-Tax, Rajasthan Region).
2. Kamal Pal S/o Shri Babu Lal, Aged About 47 Years, R/o
Plot No. 147, Hudco Quarters, Kirti Nagar, Jodhpur-
342001. (A Member Of The Income-Tax Contingent
Employees Union).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through The Finance Secretary, Ministry
Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi- 110001.
2. Pr. Chief Commissioner Of Income-Tax, C.r. Building,
Statue Circle, Jaipur- 302005.
3. Chief Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Paota, C-Road,
Jodhpur- 342010.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.T.C.Gupta through VC
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Sunil Bhandari through VC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI
ORDER
Date of Pronouncement : 13/01/2022
Date of Reserve : 10/01/2022
BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE MEHTA,J.)
The matter comes up on an application preferred by Shri
Sunil Bhandari representing the respondents seeking dismissal of
the writ petition on the ground of it having been filed without
proper authorization.
(2 of 4) [CW-16777/2019]
The instant writ petition has been filed in representative
capacity on behalf of a Union posed as Income Tax Contingent
Employees Union. The affidavit in support of the writ petition has
been sworn by one Kamal Pal claiming to be a Member and an
authorized person of the Union.
Shri Sunil Bhandari Advocate representing the respondents
has filed an application (I.A.No.1/2021) seeking dismissal of the
writ petition on the ground that none of the Members of the so-
called union whose cause is sought to be agitated in this writ
petition are identifiable. No list of the casual labour who are
alleged to be Members of the Union, has been annexed with the
writ petition. Furthermore, no proper authorization/resolution
passed by the so-called Union for the purpose of filing the Original
Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal or the writ
petition before this Court has been placed on record.
Reliance has been placed by counsel for the respondents on
the order dated 17.11.2011 passed in D.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.2893/2019 "Income Tax Contingent Employees
Union & Anr. Vs. A.N. Jha & Anr." and the order dated
9.7.2019 passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3798/2019
"Income Tax Contingent Employees Union Vs. Union of
India & Ors." whereby, this Court has held that such writ
petitions are not maintainable for lack of proper authorization.
Shri Gupta learned counsel representing the petitioners
vehemently relied upon the document Annex.7 claiming that in the
meeting dated 20.3.2015, the Union authorized him (Shri Gupta)
to file the cases on behalf of the Union. He further urged that in
the meeting dated 11.4.2018, Shri Kamal Pal had been authorized
(3 of 4) [CW-16777/2019]
to plead the matters on behalf of the Union. Shri Gupta thus
submits that the writ petition has been presented and is being
pursued under proper authorization.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments
advanced at the bar and have gone through the material placed
on record.
Suffice it to say that the minutes of the meeting dated
20.3.2015, which have been referred to by Shri Gupta during the
course of his arguments, do not bear signatures of any of the
Members of the Union. Furthermore, no list of the Members of the
Union has been annexed with the writ petition. Shri Jagdish
Solanki claiming to be President of the Union, has authorized Shri
Kamal Pal to file the matters on behalf of the Union in the courts.
However, no resolution of the Union has been filed on record on
the strength whereof, Shri Jagdish Solanki has been authorized to
further authorize Shri Kamal Pal to file the Original Application
before the Central Administrative Tribunal or the instant writ
petition. In similar circumstances, Writ Petition No.2893/2019
filed by the petitioner Union through its so-called President
Jagdish Solanki was dismissed by this Court by order dated
17.11.2021 observing as below:
"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
(4 of 4) [CW-16777/2019]
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."
Hence, we are of the firm view that the writ petition has
been filed without proper authorization/resolution and hence, the
same is not maintainable.
Accordingly, the I.A.No.1/2021 is allowed.
The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable in absence
of proper authorization.
(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
/tarun goyal/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
