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
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.
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.