Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The order was passed by a Division Bench of judge DN Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan.
The Delhi HC has held that a public interest litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can't be filed by an administrative officer merely on account of non-acceptance of suggestions by superior officers. (Shovan Patra vs UOI)
It is undesirable that an administrative officer proceeds towards the Court by way of a Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the view taken by his superior administrative officers, whether to vindicate an edge of which he's convinced or to show a lesson to the high ranking officer.
Delhi high court said.
The Petitioner, Shovan Patra held the post of Accounts Officer and there seemed to be a contrast of opinion together with his superior officers about the implementation of the workers Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
In the writ petition, the Petitioner alleged various violations of the Act and therefore the Schemes framed thereunder. He stated that an equivalent was leading to loss to the exchequer and thus, certain remedial measures were required to be undertaken.
While the Petitioner put an endorsement to the present effect before high ranking administrative officers of his employer, the superior officers took a special view concerning the implementation of the Act.
The Court opined that there seemed to be a difference of opinion with the superior officers, following which the Petitioner preferred a PIL to vindicate his position and/ or teach a lesson to the high ranking administrative officers.
It needs to be kept in mind that the executive disputes of this nature resulting from a difference of opinion between the petitioner and therefore the superior administrative officers of the respondents need to be resolved by existing administrative procedures, and will not cause the filing of public interest litigations.
the high court said.
Stating that the Petitioner was unable to point to any misfeasance or other mala fide on the part of the superior officers, which resulted in their taking an edge contrary thereto of the Petitioner, the Court added,
"A petition just like the present one isn't appropriately the topic matter of a Public Interest Litigation in the least .. there's no allegation within the present case of any mala fides, or any supporting material, for us to entertain this public interest litigation."
The Court opined that there was no reason to consider the writ petition.
86540
103860
630
114
59824