M.P.DWIVEDI Vs. Y.S.PARMAR
LAWS(HPH)-1997-9-3
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on September 18,1997

M P DWIVEDI AND ORS Appellant
VERSUS
Y S PARMAR UNIVERSITY AND ANR Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

CRAWFORD V. SPOONER [REFERRED]
BENGAL IMMUNITY CO. LTD. V. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [REFERRED]
STATE OF BOMBAY V. R.M. CHAMARBAUGUWALA AND ANR. [REFERRED]
MAZAGAON DOCK LTD. V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND EXCESS PROFITS TAX [REFERRED]
R.M.D. CHAMARBAUGWALLA AND ANR. V. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. [REFERRED]
DR. S. DUTT V. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI [REFERRED]
K.S. RAMAMURTHY REDDIAR V. CHIEF COMMISSIONER,PONDICHERRY AND ANR. [REFERRED]
S. GURMEJ SINGH V. PRATAK SINGH KAIRON [REFERRED]
MADAN LAL V. SHREE CHANGDEO SUGAR MILLS LTD.,AND ORS. [REFERRED]
TAHSILDAR SINGH AND ANR. V. STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED]
THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER,BOMBAY V. S.K.M. MANUFACTURING COMPANY [REFERRED]
THE BOARD OF REVENUE,UTTAR PRADESH V. RAI SAHEB SIDHNATH MEHROTRA [REFERRED]
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,PATIALA V. M/S SHAHZADA NAND & SONS AND ORS. [REFERRED]
ASHALATA V. M.B. VIKRAM UNIVERSITY,UJJAIN AND ORS. [REFERRED]
ISHWAR SINGH BINDRA AND ORS. V. STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED]
PARDIP PORT TRUST,PARADIP V. THEIR WORKMEN [REFERRED]
MERSEY DOCKS & HARBOUR BOARD V. HENDERSON LR [REFERRED]
M/S. SANGHVI JEEVRAJ GHEWAR CHAND AND ORS. V. M.C.G. & K.M.W. UNION [REFERRED]
UNION OF INDIA V. SANKALCHAND HIMATLAL SHETH AND ANR. [REFERRED]
K.P. VARGHESE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER,ERNAKULAM AND ANR. [REFERRED]
R.S. NAYAK V. A.R. ANTULAY [REFERRED]
M/S. GIRDHARI LAL & SONS V. BALBIR NATH MATHUR AND ORS. [REFERRED]
THE GANDHI FAIZ-E-AM DEGREE COLLEGE V. THE UNIVERSITY OF AGRA AND ANR. [REFERRED]
UMESH CHANDRA SINHA V. V.N. SINGH AND ORS. [REFERRED]
SANKAR PRASAD V. SAMBHALPUR UNIVERSITY [REFERRED]
J.S. MOHAPATRA V. ORISSA UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY,BHUBANESWAR [REFERRED]
DR. BOOL CHAND V. CHANCELLOR,KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY [REFERRED]
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF U.P. STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,LUCKNOW V. CHANDRA KIRAN TYAGI [REFERRED]
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF VAISH DEGREE COLLEGE,SHAMLI AND ORS. V. LAKSHMI NARAIN AND ORS. [REFERRED]
VIDYA RAM MISRA V. THE MANAGING COMMITTEE,SHRI JAI NARAIN COLLEGE AND ANR. [REFERRED]
ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. MILNE [REFERRED]
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. V. FILIP TIAGO DE GAMA OF VEDEM VASCO DE GAMA [REFERRED]
RAJ KUMAR V. THE COMMISSIONER TEMPLE TRUST AND ANR. ATR [REFERRED]
JEET RAM THAKUR V. HIMACHAL PRADESH UNIVERSITY AND ORS. [REFERRED]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI VS. TEK CHAND BHATIA [REFERRED]
S P SAMPATH KUMAR J N GUPTA D J SOMAIYA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
CHAIRMAN DIRECTOR COMBINED ENTRANCE EXAMINATION CEE 1990 VS. OSIRIS DAS [REFERRED]
KASHIVIDYAPITH VS. MOTILALANPOTHERS [REFERRED]
L CHANDRA KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
KHAN DURRANG VS. PRINICIPAL SHRI TULSI RAM SHIVAJI COLLEGE [REFERRED]
VINOD KUMAR VS. H.R.T.C. [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)By order September 2, 1997, following two questions have been referred to a Full Bench for consideration:
(1) Whether the Himachal Pradesh University, Dr. Yashwant Singh Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry and the Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishva Vidyalaya are local or other authorities within the meaning of Section 15(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

(2) Whether the said Universities are controlled or owned by the State Government.

(2.)All these writ petitions pertain to service matters in relation to employees in the Universities. Dr. Y.S. Parmar University is a part to C.W.P. No. 170 of 1990 and C.W.P. No. 582 of 1990. Himachal Pradesh University is a party to C.W.Ps. No. 203 of 1990 and 130 of 1992. Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishva Vidyalaya is a party to C.W.P. No. 1327 of 1995.
(3.)The questions referred to us arose on account of a preliminary objection raised by the second Respondent in C.W.P. No. 582/1990 to the maintainability of the writ petition in this Court. According to learned Counsel for the said second Respondent, all the three Universities will fall within the expression 'local or other authorities' found in Section 15(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). It is also his contention that it is not necessary that local or other authorities mentioned in the section should be controlled or owned by the State Government in order to enable the State Government to issue a notification under that sub-section. According to learned Counsel, the expression 'controlled or owned by the State Government' would apply only to Corporations or societies mentioned in the section immediately prior to the said expression. It is pointed out by him that the State Government has issued a notification on 29.8.1986 under Section 15(2) of the Act making the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Act applicable to the local or other authorities and Corporations or societies controlled or owned by the State Government with effect from Ist day of September, 1986. Thus, according to him, from 1st September, 1986 onwards the Act became applicable to all local or other authorities and to all corporations or societies controlled or owned by the State Government. It is his contention that for the purpose of making the Act applicable to local or other authorities it is not necessary that they should be controlled or owned by the State Government.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.