SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(All) 2283

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Dr. Dhananjaya Yashwant Chandrachud, CJ., Dilip Gupta, J.
Deeksha Dwivedi & 2 Others - Appellant
Versus
Union of India Thru’ Secy. & 6 Others - Respondent
Public Interest Litigation (Pil) No. - 34551 of 2014
Decided On : 08-07-2014

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Deeksha Dwivedi(In Person, S.R. Mishra (In Person),T.P. Singh (In Person)
For the Respondent: C.S.C.,A.S.G.I./2014/9984

The court emphasized the importance of exhausting statutory alternate remedies before seeking relief through a writ petition.

Headnote:

Unemployment Allowance - Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 - The court declined to entertain the writ petition at the first instance without exhaustion of the remedies provided under the grievance redressal mechanism rules framed under Section 19 of the Act.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought a direction to provide daily unemployment allowance to workmen who had applied for a job and were not provided a job under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005.

Finding of the Court:

The court declined to entertain the writ petition at this stage, leaving it open to the petitioners to invoke the remedy as provided in the rules framed under Section 19 of the Act by invoking the grievance redressal mechanism.

Issues: The main issue was whether the court should entertain the writ petition without exhaustion of the remedies provided under the grievance redressal mechanism rules framed under Section 19 of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that public interest litigation must conform to the normal requirements of a writ petition under Article 226, and when a statutory alternate remedy is available, it would not be appropriate for the court to entertain the writ petition at the first instance without exhaustion of the remedies provided.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and there shall be no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.

In these proceedings the petitioners, who have moved the Court on the basis of a fact finding report under the auspices of the Human Rights Law Network, have sought a direction to the District Magistrate, Kaushambi and to the Block Development Officer, Block Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi to provide daily unemployment allowance to the workmen who had applied for a job and were not provided a job.

2. Reliance has been placed in this regard on the provisions of Section 7 of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005. Section 19 of the Act empowers the State Government, by framing rules, to determine an appropriate grievance redressal mechanism at the block level and the district level for dealing with any complaint by any person in respect of the implementation of the Scheme and to lay down the procedure for the disposal of such complaints. In pursuance of the Act, the Uttar Pradesh Employment Guarantee Grievance Redressal Mechanism Rules, 2009 have been framed. Under Rule 3 of the Rules of 2009, any citizen or any registered non-governmental institution is entitled to make a complaint under Section 19 of the Act. Rule 4 contemplates that a complaint can be made regarding violation of any provision of the Act.

3. In our view, the complaint which is sought to be espoused on behalf of the petitioners would require a basic verification of facts. Public Interest Litigation must conform to the normal requirements of a writ petition under Article 226 and when a statutory alternate remedy is available, it would not be appropriate for the Court to entertain the writ petition at the first instance without exhaustion of the remedies which are provided. Hence, we leave it open to the petitioners to invoke the remedy as provided in the Rules framed under Section 19 of the Act by invoking the grievance redressal mechanism. Leaving it open to the petitioners to do so, we decline to entertain the writ petition at this stage. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top