Wp/24177/2014 Of Director Of Income Tax v. G. Maruthi Prasad
High Court
22 Aug 2014 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Wp/24177/2014 Of Director Of Income Tax v. G. Maruthi Prasad
Date of order
22 Aug 2014
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Wp/24177/2014 Of Director Of Income Tax v. G. Maruthi Prasad, the High Court (2014) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANUANDTHE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS
WRIT PETITIONNo.24177 OF 2014
ORDER:(perHon’ble SriJustice K.C.Bhanu)
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India to call for the records in M.A.No.386 of 2014in O.A.No.020/00557 of 2014 on the file of the CentralAdministrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short,‘the Tribunal’) and declare the order, dated 12.06.2014, passed inthe above Miscellaneous Application by the Tribunal as illegal andarbitrary and quash the same.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and therespondents.
3. Admittedly, the petitioners filed a petition to vacate theinterim order suspending the Memorandum F.No.CCAP/2(9)(a)Estt/2014-15, dated 09.06.2014. But, here it is a peculiar case,where promotions to 148 persons have been stalled by thisimpugned order. Memorandum, dated 09.06.2014, by whichpromotions were given, was suspended without there being anychallenge to same.
4. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for therespondents that the proceedings have been issued by petitionerNo.4 by disregarding the order of the Tribunal, but at the sametime, as on today that order has not been under challenge. Without there being a challenge to the promotion order, thepromotions to 148 persons have been stalled. Thereby, the
Tribunal has violated the principles of natural justice withoutimpleading 148 persons, who have been affected by the order. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
5. Further, in the normal circumstances, we do not entertainthe writ petition because the petitioners cannot be permitted toprosecute two parallel proceedings in respect of the same causeof action.
6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside theimpugned order and the Tribunal is requested to dispose of theOriginal Application on merits in accordance with law within aperiod of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of thisorder. There shall be no order as to costs. MiscellaneousPetitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
_______________________
JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
___________
JUSTICE ANIS
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.