Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Union Of India vs Abhimanyu Tiwari . on 29 March, 2016
Bench: V. Gopala Gowda, Arun Mishra
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3228 OF 2016
(Arising out of SLP(C)No. 24008/2013)
Union of India Appellant (s)
VERSUS
Abhimanyu Tiwari & Ors. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
The correctness of the judgment and order dated 18.9.2012 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh is challenged by the Union of India on several grounds. The prayer of the respondent no.1 is hereunder:
The High Court while examining the claim of the first respondent has referred to the affidavit of the Union of India and the second respondent and adverted to certain factual aspects and without examining the reliefs sought for by the petitioner has arrived at the conclusion and given certain directions to the respondent No.1. Having Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Suman Wadhwa Date: 2016.03.31 regard to the grievances sought to be ventilated in 14:56:19 IST Reason: conducting sports events and other national events having considered the affidavit filed by the Joint Secretary of 2 the Union of India, Sports Department, on 16.5.2012 the learned Division Bench of the High Court has given certain directions to the respondent No.1 stating that whatever amount of grant is earmarked for organizing Inter University Sports Events and other national events, the said amount be proportionately transferred to the organizing university/college. At the maximum 10% of the amount to be given to the respondent No.2 as grant so earmarked or any other national level organizations like NSF and NSPO for making expenditure on chalking out a programme and frame the policies for organizing Inter University Sports Events and remaining 90% amount of the grant to be transferred to the University organizing sports events. In our considered view it is contrary to the policy that has been framed by the Union of India, Sports Department. The correctness of the same is questioned in this civil appeal raising certain questions of law, namely, whether the High Court can direct the Union of India that whatever amount of grant is earmarked for organizing Inter Universities Sports Events and other national events should be proportionately transferred to the organizing University/College? And further the another question framed is whether the Ministry of Sports Department, Union of India is competent to deviate from the existing provision of the scheme which was approved by the Planning Commission and the Ministry of Finance? The last question is that did the High Court fell into error by ignoring the 3 fact that the Ministry does not deal with State Level Association/University/College as the Scheme provides for financial assistance to only National Level Sports Federation and National Level Sports Promotion Organization? Further another question is that the High Court should not have considered the vital fact that it is not feasible to monitor the utilization of funds, checking of audited accounts, release of funds, etc. with limited resources available with the Ministry? The aforesaid questions of law are certainly fall for consideration for this Court in this Appeal.
After careful perusal of the impugned judgment in the backdrop of the reliefs sought for by the first respondent in the writ petition, in our considered view the High Court has not examined the case in a proper perspective keeping in view the prayers of the first respondent in the writ petition and the scope of the judicial review and the policy of the Union of India with regard to the amount earmarked for the national level or international level that will be conducted by international university or by any other organization whether annually or periodical sports events. So, in our considered view, the High Court was required to examine the policy of the fact, ought to have examined the case of the first respondent, as it has not been done in the instant case. Learned counsel Mr. M. Tiwari, appearing on behalf of the first respondent, sought to be justified the impugned judgment and order 4 contending that the High Court has rightly exercised its judicial review power in giving a direction to the Union of India, as has been mentioned in the order, that the same be referred to the business transaction framed by union of India for the purpose of conducting the business of the concerned department of Union of India, Department of Sports. Therefore, there is no need for this Court to interfere with the same as the High Court has adverted to the affidavit filed by the Joint Secretary, and the grievances sought to be ventilated by the second respondent. Taking of the relevant aspects, stated in the affidavit, a direction was given to the appellant. Our query that whether the High Court has dealt with the prayer made in the writ petition with reference to the case pleaded by the first respondent, learned counsel has fairly conceded that the High Court has not examined. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the High Court has not examined the case with reference to the prayers made by the first respondent. On this ground alone, it is required for this Court to set aside the impugned judgment and order and remit the matter to the High Court for its reconsideration after hearing both the parties. The High Court is required to exercise its power of judicial review while examining the prayers with regard to framing of the guidelines or rules for the purpose of appropriation or allocation of the amount earmarked by the Union of India on the basis of the recommendation made by the 12th Planning 5 Commission.
With the aforesaid observations, the impugned judgment and order is set aside and since the matter is in relation to 2010, we request the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the High Court to assign the matter to an appropriate Bench who will examine and dispose of it expeditiously.
The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
........................J. (V. GOPALA GOWDA) ........................J. (ARUN MISHRA) New Delhi;
Date: 29.03.2016.
ITEM NO.5 COURT NO.9 SECTION IVB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 24008/2013 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18/09/2012 in WPC No. 9157/2010 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh) UNION OF INDIA Petitioner(s) VERSUS ABHIMANYU TIWARI & ORS. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and interim relief and office report) Date : 29/03/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad,Adv.
Mr. A.Deb Kumar,Adv.
Mr. Avinash Sharma,Adv. Mr. Surya Narayan Patro,Adv. Mr. D. S. Mahra,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. M.Tewari,Adv.
Mr. Amit Pia,Adv.
Ms. Eliza Bas,Adv.
Mr. Shree Pal Singh,Adv.
Mr. Ashwani Kumar Dubey,Adv.
Mr. Amrit Paul,Adv.
Mr. Himinder Lal,Adv.
Mr. Aditya Singh,Adv. Mr. M. P. Shorawala,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
The Appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
(SUMAN WADHWA) (CHANDER BALA)
AR-cum-PS COURT MASTER
Signed order is placed on the file.