Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Income Tax Contingent Employees Union vs A.N. Jha on 17 November, 2021
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Sameer Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2893/2019
1. Income Tax Contingent Employees Union, Income-Tax
Office, Jodhpur. (Association Of Casual Labours Of
Income-Tax, Rajasthan Region).
2. Jagdish Solanki S/o Shri Lal Chand,, Aged About 42
Years, R/o Babu Laxman Singh Colony, Outside Third
Pole, Mahamandir, Jodhpur- 342001, (A Member Of The
Income-Tax Contingent Employees Union).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. A.n. Jha, Finance Secretary, Ministry Of Finance,
Department Of Revenue, Government Of India, New Delhi
110001.
2. P.k. Ambastha, Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Paota,
C-Road, Jodhpur- 342010.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. TC Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Bhandari
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment
17/11/2021
BY THE COURT: (PER HON'BLE JAIN,J.)
The present petition is preferred by the petitioner Income- Tax Contingent Employees Union (hereinafter referred to as "ITCEU"), Income-Tax Office, Jodhpur and one Shri Jagdish Solanki claiming himself to be a member of the said Union.
By way of the said petition, order dated 16.11.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Bench, Jodhpur in (Downloaded on 18/11/2021 at 08:58:12 PM) (2 of 3) [CW-2893/2019] contempt petition No. 18/2017 is challenged which is marked as Annexure/1.
At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection pertaining to incorporation of petitioner No. 1 and authorization/resolution passed by the members of the Union and authorization given to the Advocate. The respondent counsel has also brought to the knowledge of the Court judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in DBCWP No. 3798/2019 passed on 09.7.2019 wherein relying upon the Rule 7 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1993) and after hearing the arguments, this Court has held that there was non compliance of Rule 7 and in absence of proper and adequate authorization the petition was dismissed.
The counsel for the petitioner was specifically called upon by the Court to furnish incorporation certificate of the (ITCEU) i.e. petitioner No. 1, a valid and registered resolution passed by the members to agitate the issue but in spite of so, neither the petitioner counsel was able to reflect from the record the so called resolution and incorporation certificate nor was able to submit the same during the course of hearing. The `Vakalatnama' drawn in favour of the petitioner's counsel was also not approved by the stamp of petitioner No. 1 or its office bearer. On perusal of Annexure/1 i.e. order of the Tribunal dated 16.11.2018, it is also clear that the petitioner did not supply the name of the effected individuals to the respondent department to enable them to process claim and make payments wherever due, therefore, the (Downloaded on 18/11/2021 at 08:58:12 PM) (3 of 3) [CW-2893/2019] claim of the petitioner in the present petition that order dated 12.5.2016 passed in OA No. 325/2015 was not complied with does not appear to be correct on facts as well as in law.
Rule 7 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Rule of Practice, 1993 is reproduced here under:-
"Production of authorisation for and on behalf of an Association :- Where an application/pleading or other proceeding purported to be filed is by an Association, the person, or persons who sign/(s)/verify (ies) the same shall produce along with such application, etc., for verification by the Registry, a true copy of the resolution of the Association empowering such persons(s) to do so:
Provided the Registrar may at any time call upon the party to produce such further materials as he deems fit for satisfying himself about due authorisaton."
In light of the preliminary objections raised by the respondent counsel pertaining to maintainability of the present petition for lack of the proper authorization and following the dictum of this Court in DBCWP No. 3798/2019, whereby in terms of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1993, proper authorization/resolution is mandatorily required.
On analysis of Rule 7 and the petitioner's failing in furnishing valid resolution/authorization, we are of the view that the present petition is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed.
(SAMEER JAIN),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
ns. 22-1/-
(Downloaded on 18/11/2021 at 08:58:12 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)