Writ Court Cannot Assess Quantum Of Damage Or Compensation When Appropriate Forum For Adjudication Of Evidence Is Elsewhere: Jharkhand HC
The Jharkhand High Court observed that a writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot assess the quantum of damage or compensation when an appropriate forum for adjudication of evidence is elsewhere.
The Court quashed the termination of a probationary Class IV employee (petitioner) at the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur (employer), rejecting the employer's argument that he was a temporary employee whose services could be terminated under Rule 23A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951.
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai observed, “This Court is of the view that the writ court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot assess the quantum of damage or compensation since the same requires adjudication by leading evidence for which the appropriate forum is else.”
Advocate Nipun Bakshi appeared for the petitioner, while AC Mohan Kr. Dubey represented the respondents.
The petitioner challenged his debarment from participating in a future bid of the tender process under Article 226 of the Constitution arguing that merely on the basis of an FIR he had been debarred.
It was submitted that the Municipal Commissioner had issued a communication which debarred the petitioner from future bids based solely on the pending FIR. The petitioner contended that this action was illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of the principles of natural justice, as it was done without proper inquiry or evidence.
Later, the respondents gave a fresh order by which the restriction put upon the petitioner in participating in the future bid was recalled with permission for his participation in the future bid.
However, the petitioner submitted that he was deprived of participating in the bid for about eight months and was therefore entitled to compensation for the aforesaid period for the illegal acts of the respondents.
“It is evident from the content of the First Information Report that on the day of opening of the bid, some nuisance was created which led the authority in instituting the aforesaid criminal case before the concerned police station. The authority, on account of pendency of the aforesaid criminal case against the petitioner, has debarred him from participating in the future bid,” the High Court noted.
The Court explained that a writ court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot assess the quantum of damage or compensation since the same requires adjudication by leading evidence for which the appropriate forum is else.
Consequently, the Court ordered that the petitioner could approach the court of civil jurisdiction for damage/compensation noting that “no positive direction can be passed in favour of the writ petitioner so far as prayer No.(ii) is concerned.”
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the petition.
Cause Title: M/s. Deepak Construction v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Nipun Bakshi
Respondents: AC Mohan Kr. Dubey; Advocate Ranjit Kumar
