Tc Gupta vs Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 4595 Raj

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
              D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10645/2019

T.C. Gupta S/o Shri Gyan Chand, Aged About 64 Years, R/o 107,
Defence Colony, Nandri, Jodhpur- 342015.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.     Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
       Finance, Department Of Revenue, Government Of India,
       New Delhi- 110001.
2.     Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Paota, C-Road,
       Jodhpur - 342010.
3.     Hina P. Shah, Member, CAT Bench, Jodhpur- 342001.
                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. T.C. Gupta (Petitioner) through VC
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Sunil Bhandari, through VC
                               Mr. Pritam Solanki, through VC



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

                          JUDGEMENT

Judgment pronounced on                  :::             24/03/2022
Judgment reserved on                    :::             18/01/2022



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

1. The petitioner Shri T.C. Gupta, an Advocate enrolled with the

Bar Council of Rajasthan, has approached this Court by way of this

writ petition for assailing the order dated 03.01.2019 passed by

the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench (hereinafter

referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Original Applications Nos.368/2017

and 369/2017 whereby, the learned Tribunal, dismissed the

Original Applications filed by an association in the name and style

of Income-Tax Contingent Employee's Union represented by the

(2 of 5) [CW-10645/2019]

petitioner in the capacity of a counsel holding that Shri T.C. Gupta

was acting as a de facto party in this case. Cost of Rs.1,00,000/-

was imposed upon the petitioner and the matter was referred to

the Bar Council of Rajasthan for necessary action against the

petitioner.

2. The petitioner, appearing in person, vehemently and

fervently urged that the impugned order is bad in the eyes of law.

Original Applications were filed by the petitioner in a bonafide

manner having been engaged as a counsel by the Union and its

Member Shri Mahendra Singh for espousing the cause of the

casual labours engaged in the Income Tax Department. The

Tribunal rejected the Original Applications in an absolutely

perfunctory manner. The observations made and the findings

recorded in the impugned order that the petitioner had not been

authorised to represent the Union or that he had filed a fictitious

resolution in support of the Original Applications, is absolutely

groundless. The direction given by the learned Tribunal imposing

cost of Rs.1,00,000/- upon the petitioner, is highhanded, arbitrary

and unjust and hence, the same should be quashed and set aside.

3. Shri Sunil Bhandari, Advocate, who represents the Income

Tax Department, a formal party in the proceedings, supported the

order of the learned Tribunal urging that this Court has in more

than one cases, already concluded that Shri T.C. Gupta has not

been authorised by the so-called Income Tax Contingent

Employee's Union to file cases on its behalf. That the Original

Applications were filed by Shri T.C. Gupta before the Tribunal

without proper authorisation. He further submitted that Shri Gupta

(3 of 5) [CW-10645/2019]

himself has signed and affirmed the pleadings before the Tribunal

even though he is not a party and thus, the observation made by

the learned Tribunal that the counsel himself de facto became the

party, is substantiated by the admitted factual position. He thus

implored the Court to dismiss the writ petition.

4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the

submissions advanced at bar and, have gone through the

impugned order.

5. Ex-facie, on a perusal of the order dated 03.01.2019, it

becomes clear that the learned Tribunal recorded the questioned

findings observing that no proper resolution authorising the filing

of the Original Applications was placed on the record of the

Tribunal. The Tribunal noticed the two documents having the same

contents on which, there was a variation in signatures/ number of

signatories. The pleadings of the rejoinder were personally verified

by the counsel Shri T.C. Gupta and not by the parties. The Tribunal

observed that on comparing the documents filed on different

dates, it became apparent that the signatures had been

superimposed by using a xerox machine on an existing document.

Very serious observations have been made by the learned Tribunal

on the grave misconduct committed by the counsel in Judicial

Proceedings and we are in total agreement with these

observations.

6. This Court has noticed in more than one matters that the

petitioner Advocate has indulged in filing Original Applications in

the Tribunal and writ petitions in this Court and personaly signs

(4 of 5) [CW-10645/2019]

the pleadings etc. without having been specifically authorised in

this regard by the litigants. Reference in this regard may be had to

the Judgment dated 17.11.2021 passed by this Court in D.B.

Civil Writ Petition No.2893/2019 (Income Tax Contingent

Union & Anr. vs. A.N. Jha & Anr. wherein, it was observed:

"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."

Thus, the finding of the learned Tribunal that the petitioner,

who has been enrolled as an Advocate post retirement from the

Income Tax Department, has acted as de facto party in Judicial

proceedings cannot be faulted. The Tribunal also noticed

interpolations in the documents filed on record by the petitioner

who personally verified the pleadings. Hence, the learned Tribunal

(5 of 5) [CW-10645/2019]

was perfectly justified in imposing cost quantified at Rs.1,00,000/-

upon the petitioner for such apparent misconduct.

7. As a consequence, we find no infirmity, illegality or

perversity in the impugned order dated 03.01.2019 passed by the

Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench warranting

interference therein in exercise of the extraordinary writ

jurisdiction of this Court.

8. The petitioner shall deposit cost as directed by the Tribunal

with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority within next 45

days and submit copy of receipt with the Tribunal. If the petitioner

fails to deposit the cost as above, the matter shall be reported to

the District Collector, Jodhpur for effecting recovery.

9. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed as such.

                                   (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J                                 (SANDEEP MEHTA),J


                                   Tikam Daiya/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)