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>Supreme Court remits cases for reconsideration of writ petitions under Article 226.</h1> <h3>Chain Singh Versus Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board & Anr.</h3> Chain Singh Versus Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board & Anr. - [2004 (8) SCALE 348] Issues Involved:1. Management and administration of the Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine.2. Rights and status of Baridars after the enactment of the 1988 Act.3. Tenancy and business rights of the appellant, Chain Singh.4. Formation and recognition of a trade union by the Shrine Board employees.5. Termination of services of the Shrine Board employees.6. Amenability of the Shrine Board to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.Detailed Analysis:1. Management and Administration of the Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine:The Shrine was originally managed by the Dharmarth Trust, which also looked after the welfare of the pilgrims. Due to increasing complaints regarding administration and management, the Jammu and Kashmir Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act, 1986 was enacted, later replaced by the 1988 Act. A statutory Board was constituted under Section 5 of the 1988 Act, with the Governor of Jammu & Kashmir as the ex-officio Chairman, to manage the Shrine and the Shrine Fund.2. Rights and Status of Baridars:The 1988 Act brought a drastic change by extinguishing all rights of Baridars under Section 19. Baridars were entitled to compensation recommended by a Tribunal appointed by the Governor. The Board would then decide on the compensation, and its decision would be final. Baridars offering themselves for employment to the Board had a preferential right of appointment, subject to suitability.3. Tenancy and Business Rights of the Appellant, Chain Singh:Chain Singh claimed to have become a tenant of the Board after the 1988 Act came into force. He was shifted to a new shop by the Board, which he claimed was smaller and interfered with his business. His writ petition was dismissed by a Single Judge of the High Court, leading to this appeal.4. Formation and Recognition of a Trade Union by the Shrine Board Employees:The appellants formed a trade union to improve their conditions of service, which was registered but later withdrawn by the Registrar of Trade Union, stating that the Shrine Board was not a Trade or Industry, and its employees were public servants under Section 15 of the 1988 Act. The employees continued their trade union activities, leading to victimisation and termination of some employees. Their writ petition was partly allowed by a Single Judge but dismissed by a Division Bench, leading to this appeal.5. Termination of Services of the Shrine Board Employees:The petitioner, appointed as a Chowkidar in 1978, was dismissed from service after an enquiry into alleged misconduct. His writ petition challenging the termination was dismissed by the High Court, leading to this special leave petition.6. Amenability of the Shrine Board to the Writ Jurisdiction of the High Court:The High Court held that the Shrine Board was not 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, and thus not amenable to writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had erred in applying certain tests and not considering the law laid down in Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, which overruled the tests in Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India. The Supreme Court remitted the cases to the High Court to reconsider the issue of amenability in light of Pradeep Kumar Biswas.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgments, and remitted the cases for reconsideration of the maintainability of the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court was directed to first determine whether the Shrine Board is amenable to writ jurisdiction and if any alternative remedy is available. If the writ petitions are found tenable, the High Court should decide them on their merits. The High Court was requested to expedite the hearing and dispose of the writ petitions within six months.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
