Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6089 of 2019 Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Sharma And 2 Others Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
1. Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Sharma, learned Counsel for petitioners and Sri Dhruv Kant Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for Union of India.
2. Petitioners seek mandamus commanding respondents to issue notification including the names of petitioners 1 and 2, under Section 5(5) of the Press Council Act, 1978 read with Procedure for Nomination of Members Rules, 1979.
3. Notification requires to be issued under the aforesaid provisions is a kind of legislative exercise. Court cannot issue a direction to legislate. This aspect has been settled in Union of India & ors Vs. Parul Debnath & ors JT 2009 (9) SC 134 wherein it was held as under :
"Mr. Dubey, submitted that in order to strike a balance between the constitutional provisions and the directions given both by the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court, the authorities framed the instant Scheme which they thought would take care of both the conditions. It was also urged that the direction given for creation of supernumerary posts to provide for absorption of the existing Home Guards had been deprecated by this Court on several occasions in view of the financial implications on the State Administration in the creation of such posts and the infrastructure to go along with it. In this regard, reference was made to the decision of this Court in Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club and another V. Chander Hass and another (2008 (1) SCC 683), wherein, since in spite of the fact that there were no sanctioned posts of tractor drivers against which the respondents could be regularized, directions had been given to create such posts and to regularize the services of the claimants against the said newly-created posts, this Court was of the view that such a direction was completely beyond the jurisdiction of the Courts. Further observations were made to the effect that the Court cannot direct the creation of posts since the same is prerogative of the executive or the legislative authorities and the Court could not arrogate to itself this purely executive or legislative function and direct creation of the posts in the organization. It was also observed that this Court has, time and again, pointed out that the creation of a post is an executive and legislative function as it involves economic factors".
(emphasis added)
4. The same view has been reiterated in Maharastra State Road Transport Corporation & Anr Vs. Casteribe Rajya P. Karmchari Sanghatana JT 2009 (11) SC 609.
5. We, therefore, do not find it a fit case warranting interference.
6. Dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.2.2019 I.A.Siddiqui