Patna High Court - Orders
The Infrastructure Development ... vs Krishna Kant Choubey & Ors on 7 September, 2012
Bench: Chief Justice, Ahsanuddin Amanullah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No. 117 of 2011
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10091 of 2009
======================================================
1. The Infrastructure Development Authority (I.D.A.), through its M.D.
having office at First Floor, Udyog Bhawan, East of Gandhi Maidan, Patna
2. The Managing Director, Infrastructure Development Authority ( I.D.A.),
having office at First Floor, Udyog Bhawan, East of Gandhi Maidan, Patna
.... .... Respondents .... Appellants
Versus
1. Krishna Kant Choubey, S/o Lt. Damodar Choubey, R/o 26A, Anandpuri,
West Boring Canal Road, Patna, P.O. Boring Road, P.S. S.K.Puri, Distt.
Patna .......... Petitioner .......... Respondent
2. The State of Bihar, through Principal Secretary, Department of Industries,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna
3. Smt. Ansuli Arya, I.A.S. W/o Not Known, Managing Director,
Infrastructure Development Authority ( I.D.A.) through its M.D. having
office at First Floor, Udyog Bhawan, East of Gandhi Maidan, Patna
.... .... Respondents .... Respondents.
======================================================
Appearance:
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Piyush Lall, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ravindra Kumar Singh, Advocate.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
4 07-09-2012Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 5th August 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 10091 of 2009, the respondent Infrastructure Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "the Authority") has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.
The matter at issue is the premature termination of 2 Patna High Court LPA No.117 of 2011 (4) dt.07-09-2012 2/3 service contract of the writ petitioner as Director (Administration) with the appellant. The learned single Judge has entertained the writ petition. However, in view of expiry of the term of contract, neither the learned single Judge has answered the allegation of personal mala fide made against Smt. Ansuli Arya, the then Managing Director of the Authority nor the learned single Judge has granted any relief to the writ petitioner.
Learned counsel Mr. Piyush Lall has appeared for the appellants. He has submitted that the only grievance of the Authority is that the employment being contractual the learned single Judge ought not to have entertained the writ petition.
The contention raised before us is purely academic as no relief has been granted against the appellant. Appeal need not be entertained on academic issue.
Mr. Piyush Lall has also challenged the observation made by the learned single Judge at page 6 of the impugned judgment in respect of the status of the Director (Administration). Mr. Lall has submitted that the Director (Administration) is a post created under the Authority and the Managing Director is the appointing authority. Although the nomenclature is Director (Administration), he is not a member of the Board of Directors of the Authority. Mr. Lall has also challenged the observation made in respect of the power of the Managing Director to appoint or to terminate the service of the Director (Administration).
We do appreciate the contention raised by Mr. Lall. As the matter is academic, we do not intend to dwell upon it except that in case of necessity, the Authority will be at liberty to raise the issue in respect of the status of the Director (Administration). If such a contention is raised, the same will be 3 Patna High Court LPA No.117 of 2011 (4) dt.07-09-2012 3/3 considered and decided according to law without being influenced by the disputed observation made by the learned single Judge in the order under challenge.
Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) Dilip.