Top
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
Top Stories

SC Discourages 'Dispose Of The Representation' Orders Passed By HCs/Tribunals [Read Judgment]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
9 March 2019 12:28 PM GMT
SC Discourages Dispose Of The Representation Orders Passed By HCs/Tribunals [Read Judgment]
x
“Such orders may make for a quick or easy disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions. But, they do no service to the cause of justice."

The Supreme Court has made a critical observation about the usual 'dispose of the representation' orders passed by the High Courts and the Tribunals. This 'dispose of the representation' mantra is increasingly permeating the judicial process in the High Courts and the Tribunals, said the bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Hemant Gupta while considering an appeal filed...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Supreme Court has made a critical observation about the usual 'dispose of the representation' orders passed by the High Courts and the Tribunals.

This 'dispose of the representation' mantra is increasingly permeating the judicial process in the High Courts and the Tribunals, said the bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Hemant Gupta while considering an appeal filed by Central Government.

P. Venkatesh, the son of a deceased Central Government Employee who was working in Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting made a representation for compassionate appointment which got rejected in the year 1997. He filed representation again which was also rejected. After more than a decade passed, he moved Central Administrative Tribunal, which directed the Government to consider his representations for compassionate appointment. Taking note of these facts, the bench said:

"Such orders may make for a quick or easy disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions. But, they do no service to the cause of justice. The litigant is back again before the Court, as this case shows, having incurred attendant costs and suffered delays of the legal process."

The court said that this situation could have been obviated by calling for a counter in the first instance, thereby resulting in finality to the dispute.

In this case, the Tribunal had in an order passed in the year 2013 rejected Venkatesh's claim, but the High Court, had passed an order in his favour, directing the Government to give him compassionate appointment. The bench set aside the High Court order and observed:

"The recourse to the Tribunal suffered from a delay of over a decade in the first instance. This staleness of the claim took away the very basis of providing compassionate appointment. The claim was liable to be rejected on that ground and ought to have been so rejected. The judgment of the High Court is unsustainable."

Read Judgment


Next Story
Share it