VIJYA MEGHJI JUNGI v. CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF FISHERIES TECHNOLOGY
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
Judgment
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE R.R.TRIPATHI Date of decision: 29/09/2000 ORAL JUDGEMENT : (cid:9)Learned advocate, Ms.P.J. Davawala appearing for respondent no.1 submitted that an affidavit in reply dated 26.3.1992 was filed in this matter along with annexures. On perusal of the papers, it is not traceable on record. Ms.Davawala tendered a copy of the said affidavit in reply, which is taken on record. She pointed out a Notification dated 20.4.1987, which is produced as Annexure 'I' with the affidavit in reply. In exercise of powers conferred under subsection 2 of sec.14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 ("the Act" for brevity) the Central Government specified 15.5.1987 as the date on and from which the provisions of subsection (3) of section 14 of the Act will be applicable to the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, being a society owned or controlled by the Government.
Operative part
2.(cid:9)In that view, the present petition is not maintainable. The petitioner may avail of the remedy of approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal. The petition is disposed of. Rule is discharged with no order as to cost.
3.(cid:9)This Court has not examined any of the aspect of the case on merits. It will be open to petitioner to approach and ventilate his grievances before the Central Administrative Tribunal. 29th September 2000(cid:9) (cid:9)(Ravi R. Tripathi, J.) karim*
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India; Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 — s. 14.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gujarat High Court, on 29 Sep 2000. The bench was R R TRIPATHI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.