Sikkim High Court
WP(PIL)/2/2021 of Dorjee Tshering Lepcha Vs State of Sikkim and Ors. on 1 March 2021
No. 02/2021 DORJEE TSHERING LEPCHA PETITIONER (S) VERSUS STATE OF SIKKIM & ORS. RESPONDENT (S) For petitioner : Mr. Yam Kumar Subba, Advocate. For State-respondents : Mr. Sudesh Joshi, Addl. Advocate General. Mr. Sujan Sunwar, Asst. Govt. Advocate. Date: 01/03/2021 CORAM : HON’BLE MR.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
WP (PIL) No. 02/2021
DORJEE TSHERING LEPCHA
PETITIONER (S)
VERSUS
STATE OF SIKKIM & ORS. For petitioner : Mr. Yam Kumar Subba, Advocate. For State-respondents : Mr. Sudesh Joshi, Addl. Advocate General. Mr. Sujan Sunwar, Asst. Govt. Advocate.
RESPONDENT (S)
Date: 01/03/2021
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR MAHESHWARI, CJ. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, J. …
PER J.K. MAHESHWARI, CJ
This petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of Constitution of India assailing the Office Order dated 17.11.2019 issued by the respondent no.3 and to declare it as null and void with a further prayer to restrain all departments of respondent no.1 entertaining the recommendations made by the respondent no.4 an Area In-charge appointed in their respective constituency of respondent nos.2 and 3 with a further prayer to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus declaring that any work, appointment, selection of beneficiaries of rural scheme for whatsoever executed till date on the basis of the recommendations are null and void with a further direction that the respondent no.4 do not have any executive and quasi-executive power in the Government of Sikkim, to make any such recommendation further restraining respondent no.4 and an Area In-Charge from placing their designation place from their Area In-charge of their vehicles.
After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Yam Kumar Subba at a length and looking into the nature of the order which is issued by way of internal correspondence for functioning of any political party cannot be a subject matter of interference in the Public Interest Litigation, therefore, the Consequential reliefs as prayed for, in this Writ Petition by the petitioner seeking writ in the nature of mandamus to issue direction against the respondent no.1 is not required to be invoked.
We are constraint to observe that the Government and the departments of the respondent no.1 ought to have discharge their duties in accordance with law and the merit of the individual issues. In case any aggrieved person is there whose grievance has not been addressed and they have not been given the benefit, which they are entitled to, at liberty to approach the Court in individual. However, questioning the correspondence of the individual political party, Public Interest Litigation cannot be entertained.
It is further to observe that pasting the assignment by a citizen on any Motor Vehicles is the subject matter of issue which is to be looked into by the appropriate Authorities on submitting of the representation in terms of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and to redress it as per law.
In view of the forgoing discussion, in the opinion of this Court this Public Interest Litigation is not entertainable, therefore, dismissed with the observation made hereinabove.
Judge
Chief Justice