Ashok Kumar Kanaujiya v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy
Case at a glance
- Order date
- 28 Apr 2025
- Bench
- KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel prays for and is granted one week's time to obtain written instructions regarding the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings.
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is an admitted case that the petitioner, while posted as a competent authority/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Musafirkhana, District Amethi, had passed the award as a quasi-judicial authority. Only allegation in the charge-sheet is that award passed by the petitioner is erroneous. There is no allegation of corruption or any malafide against the petitioner.
He submits that under the National Highways Act, 1956, particularly Section 3G, a person or authority (like the National Highway Authority) can object to the determined amount of compensation. If not satisfied with the competent authority's decision, they can opt for arbitration under Section 3G(5). Finally, if dissatisfied with the arbitrator's award, an application can be filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the competent civil court. Against that he can file proceedings under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and then to the Supreme Court, however, under no circumstances a quasi judicial authority can be subjected to the disciplinary proceeding such as this for passing award that too and when there is no allegation of corruption or malafide against the petitioner.
In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgements in the cases of (1) Zunjarro Bihikaji Nagarkar vs Union of India and others (1999) SCC 409; (2) Abhay Jain vs The High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan and another passed in Civil Appeal No.2029 of 2022; (3) Ismail Sait vs The Competent Authority The Competent Authority, Land Acquisition and Special, District Revenue Officer, National Highways [NH-45], Villupuram District; (4) Rajkuar Tamboli vs State of Chhattisgarh and another Cr.M.P.NO. 1461 of 2023; (5) Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal Original Application no. 799 of 2021 Shirish Ramchandra Yadv vs State of Maharashtra.
Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel prays for and is granted one week's time to obtain written instructions regarding the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings.
Prima facie, the matter requires consideration.
Till further orders of this Court, it is provided that the departmental proceedings pending against the petitioner shall continue, however, no final decision shall be taken without leave of this Court.
List on 6.5.2025. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 Madhu D.R/P.S
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
National Highways Act, 1956; Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — ss. 34, 37.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 28 Apr 2025. The bench was KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR.
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.