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>Appellate order invalid for ignoring earlier orders; evasive affidavit; officer to pay Rs.5,000; Principal Secretary to file personal affidavit</h1> <h3>M/s Rajdhani Udyog Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Others</h3> HC held the appellate authority's order was invalidly passed without considering earlier High Court orders available on the record; the respondents' ... Validity of the order passed by the Appellate Authority without considering the orders of High Court, even if the same was available on the record of appeal - Prayer for a better affidavit on behalf of the officers (respondents) - HELD THAT:- Perusal of the afore-quted paragraphs (of the affidavit) shows that the officer has very conveniently states that when the order was passed on 09.11.2024, the order dated 22.05.2025 passed in JANTA MACHINE TOOLS [2025 (5) TMI 1894 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] and the order dated 17.04.2025 passed in S/S DINESH KUMAR PRADEEP KUMAR [2025 (4) TMI 1650 - SC ORDER] was not available for consideration at the time of deciding the appeal. Further, in para no.5 of the said affidavit, the deponent has admitted that that the writ court has passed an order on 25.07.2024 in M/s Dinesh Kumar Pradeep Kumar [2024 (8) TMI 71 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], but not a word has been whispered that one the writ Court has passed an order, the same has not been followed while passing the impugned order. The case is adjourned subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- to be made to the petitioner from the salary of the respondent who has passed the impugned order, before the next date fixed. Let the Principal Secretary, Institutional Finance, Government of U.P., Lucknow/respondent no.1 file his personal affidavit explaining the conduct of the officers of the State for not following the orders passed by the writ Court. List the matter again on 09.09.2025, as fresh. Petitioner's writ challenge proceeded after respondents filed two personal affidavits taken on record. Respondent-officer's affidavit stated that subsequent authoritative decisions 'were not available for consideration at the time of deciding the appeal,' quoting: '6. That it is also relevant to submit that the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in M/s Janta Machine Tools... as well as the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 17.04.2025... were subsequent to the date of the appellate order passed by the deponent on 09.11.2024. Hence, these judgments were not available for consideration at the time of deciding the appeal.' The deponent further averred the impugned order was passed 'bona fide and in accordance with the law and judicial position as prevailing on the said date,' adding an undertaking 'to abide by and follow in letter and spirit the law as has now been settled by the Hon'ble High Court as well as by the Hon'ble Apex Court.' Court noted the deponent admitted a prior writ order (25.07.2024) had not been followed and directed a better affidavit, payment of Rs.5,000 from the respondent-officer's salary to petitioner, filing of a personal affidavit by Principal Secretary explaining non-compliance, and formulation/dissemination of a roadmap to keep officers updated on judicial pronouncements. Case listed for further hearing.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
