TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rules withdrawal of judge's resignation valid, Union of India has locus standi for appeal.</h1> <h3>U.O.I. Versus GOPAL CHANDRA MISRA & ORS</h3> The court allowed the appeals, set aside the majority judgment of the High Court, and dismissed the writ petition. It ruled that the Judge's resignation ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether a High Court Judge can withdraw a resignation submitted to the President before the resignation's effective date.2. The locus standi of the Union of India to appeal against the High Court's judgment.3. The interpretation of Article 217(1) of the Constitution regarding the resignation of a High Court Judge.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Withdrawal of Resignation by a High Court Judge:The principal question was whether a High Court Judge, who sends a resignation letter to the President effective from a future date, can withdraw it before that date. The court concluded that a resignation, which is prospective and not immediately effective, can be withdrawn before it becomes operative. The resignation letter dated May 7, 1977, from the Judge to the President, indicating resignation effective from August 1, 1977, was deemed not to be a complete and operative resignation until the specified future date. Therefore, the withdrawal of the resignation by the letter dated July 15, 1977, was valid and effective.2. Locus Standi of the Union of India:The Union of India was impleaded as a respondent in the case before the High Court and contested the writ petition. The court found that the Union of India had a substantial interest in the case, as it involved the interpretation of the Constitution and the validity of the Judge's resignation withdrawal. The Union of India, having been a party in the High Court proceedings and having a stake in the dispute, was entitled to appeal against the High Court's judgment.3. Interpretation of Article 217(1) of the Constitution:Article 217(1) outlines the tenure and conditions under which a High Court Judge may resign. The court examined whether the act of sending a resignation letter effective from a future date constitutes a complete resignation. The court held that a resignation letter indicating a future effective date does not immediately sever the Judge's connection with the office. Therefore, it is not a complete and operative resignation until the specified date is reached. The court emphasized that the resignation becomes effective on the date specified by the Judge and can be withdrawn before that date.Conclusion:The court allowed the appeals, set aside the majority judgment of the High Court, and dismissed the writ petition. The court ruled that the Judge's resignation was not complete and operative until the future date specified in the resignation letter, and thus, the withdrawal of the resignation before that date was valid. The Union of India had the locus standi to appeal, and the interpretation of Article 217(1) supported the view that a prospective resignation could be withdrawn before it became effective.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
