TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Government, if allegations are made against private parties or the officials, they should be impleaded as respondents. In the cases on hand, the petitioner has made several allegations against the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle (I), Chennai, who was the Initiating Officer of the impugned proceedings and rightly he has been impleaded as the second respondent in his personal capacity. However, the petitioner has not impleaded Mr.RR and Archer, though there are several allegations made against them relating to transactions with the petitioner and connecting them with the second respondent. Therefore, it is of the considered view that the impleading parties are proper parties, whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision of the question involved in these proceedings. Second respondent's jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice, prohibitory order and impugned attachment order - Held that:- The applicability of the defacto doctrine cannot be made to the present proceedings in an abstract manner, but has to be done bearing in mind the provisions of the Benami Act and in particular Section 24, Section 59 read with Section 2(19) and the noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India). 2(iii). In W.P.No.14627 of 2017, the petitioner seeks for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to quash the order dated 19.05.2017, issued under Section 24(3) of the Act, intimating the petitioner that pursuant to the provisional attachment of shares and debentures, enforced, the petitioner is restricted/prohibited from dealing in any manner and from exercising any rights in relation to the shares and debentures. 2(iv). In W.P.No.14628 of 2017, the petitioner seeks for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to quash the order of provisional attachment, dated 19.05.2017, issued by the second respondent to the 6th respondent under Section 24(3) of the Act. 3. The brief factual background leading to the present litigation is as follows:- The petitioner had invested in an Indian company Zynergy India, a company promoted by Mr.Rohit Rabindernath(Mr.RR) by way of shares and debentures. The petitioner holds 51% of the share capital of Zynergy India; 5,43,470 fully compulsorily and mandatorily convertible debentures of face value ₹ 100/- each, issued by Zynergy India and 20,00,000/- optionally fully convertible debentures of face value ₹ 100/- each, issued by Zynerg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted that the petitioner has filed C.P.No.19 of 2017, before the NCLT against Mr.RR and his group for oppression and mismanagement and the NCLT, by order dated 27.04.2017, ordered status quo and restrained the conduct of any related party transactions, without leave of the Tribunal and directed the management of Zynergy India to produce relevant information as sought for by the petitioner. The petitioner would allege that the impugned proceedings have been initiated to prevent NCLT from proceeding further with C.P.No.19 of 2017. The petitioner would attribute certain personal motives to the second respondent, Shri.R.V.Aroon Prasaad, IRS., Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle (I), Chennai, who has been impleaded in his personal capacity, stating that the second respondent for extraneous consideration, has passed the impugned orders only to favour Mr.RR in the private litigation between Mr.RR and the petitioner. 4. Mr.P.Chidambaram, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner explained about the shareholding pattern in Zynergy India and the pattern of investment made in the company and how the debentures and shares were allotted to the petitioner. It is sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... attachment order issued by the 6th respondent. Referring to the notification, dated 18.05.2017, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (Department of Revenue), Ministry of Finance, it is submitted that the said notification supersedes the notification dated 25.10.2016 and directs that the income tax authorities under Section 116 of the Income Tax Act specified in column-(2) of the Schedule having headquarters at places specified in corresponding entry in column-(3), to exercise powers and perform functions of the authority under the prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, specified in the corresponding entries in column (4) in respect of the territorial areas specified in the corresponding entries in column (5) of the schedule having jurisdiction vested in them. It is submitted that serial No.9, deals with the officers having headquarters at Chennai and in terms of clause (1) of serial No.9, the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax/Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, (Benami Prohibition), Chennai, is the Approving Authority and in terms of serial No.9(ii), the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (Benami Prohibition), Chennai is the I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice, dated 19.05.2017, as being well within his powers and jurisdiction. The learned Senior counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the additional counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, dated 07.07.2017, in which it has been avered that though the Gazette of India is dated 18.05.2017, it was digitally signed and published only on 22.05.2017 and came to his knowledge only thereafter, and therefore, it is in good faith and in exercise of powers under Act, the impugned orders were issued by the second respondent. Though in paragraph 3 of the said counter affidavit, the date of notification is stated as 22.05.2017, the learned Senior Standing counsel appearing for the Department clarified that it is a typographical error and the date should be read as 18.05.2017. The learned Senior counsel referred to the Additional counter affidavit filed by Mr.Visakh IRS, dated 28.08.2017, it has been stated that the first respondent addressed a letter dated 07.08.2017 to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Judicial), Chennai and clarified that notification, dated 18.05.2017, was uploaded by the Government of India Press on the website of E-Gazette on 22.05.2017 at 18.06hours. This s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng come to know of it later is of no relevance and the date of publication, is the date of notification in the Gazette i.e., 18.05.2017. In this regard, the learned Senior counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the reply received to a query under the Right to Information Act, vide application, dated 21.06.2017, wherein the Chief Public Information Officer by reply dated 13.07.2017, informed the petitioner that the date of e-publication on e-gazette website is 18.05.2017. Therefore, it is submitted that the notification as defined under Section 2(21) of the Act would mean a notification published in the official gazette and the expression notified shall be construed accordingly and the notified date being 18.05.2017, the second respondent had no jurisdiction on 19.05.2017, to issue the impugned orders. 11. Nextly, it is submitted that no action can be taken against the petitioner under the 2016 amended Act as the same is only prospective and all transactions were prior, during 2015-16 i.e., before the Amendment Act coming into force w.e.f. 01.11.2016. It is submitted that all the provisions of the Amended Act has substantive provisions and can be only prospective and ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the conditions, as there is no allegation that the Singapore company is holding shares on behalf of Kohli Ventures in British Virgin Islands and Cascade Global in Hongkong. 13. Further, commenting upon the allegations made in the show cause notice, dated 19.05.2017, it is submitted that though the second respondent has stated that he has reason to believe, no reasons have been set out in the show cause notice and no reasons have been recorded in writing while issuing the show cause notice as required under Section 24(1) of the Act. What has been stated by the second respondent in the impugned show cause notice, is only his conclusion and not how he had reason to belief that any person is the benamidar and there is no reasons recorded in writing to the said effect. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision in the case of ITO, I Ward, District VI, Calcutta Ors vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das [(1976) 3 SCC 757] and the decision in the case of Union of India vs. M.L.Capoor [(1973) 2 SCC 836]. 14. Once again referring to the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, dated 19.06.2017, it is submitted that the second respondent has only stated that on perusal of the mater ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Excel Crop Care Ltd., vs. CCI Anr [(2017) 8 SCC 47], wherein the Court took into consideration the earlier decision in the case of R.Rajagopal Reddy vs. Padmini Chandrasekharan [(1995) 2 SCC 630] and held that merely because an agreement relating to Benami transaction was entered to prior to come into force of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988, it would not mean that the provisions of the said Act will not apply retroactively to such an agreement and render it void. With regard to the manner in which subjective satisfaction has to be recorded, the learned Additional Solicitor General referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Barium Chemicals Ltd., Anr., vs. Company Law Board Ors., [AIR 1967 SC 295] and Harihar Prasad Dubey vs. Tulsi Das Mundhra Ors., [AIR 1981 SC 81,]. 16. Referring to the letter addressed by the CBDT to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Judicial), dated 07.08.2017, it is submitted that the Directorate of Printing, Government of India has stated that the notification, dated 18.05.2017, was uploaded by the Government of India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... complainant with respect to the information provided and he ought to have been impleaded as a party for an effective adjudication of the dispute. It is further submitted that the Writ Petitioner is a shell company owned and controlled by one Mr.Tej Kohli, an individual against whom several criminal investigation remain pending and has been indicted by the Courts of United States of America for various offences and the impleading parties acquired knowledge of these facts, only when several Banks refused to approve loans on the basis that the said Mr.Tej Kohli did not satisfy the KYC norms. Further, it is submitted that the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition is replete with references to fraud and collusion by the impleading parties and the said Shri.R.V.Arron Prasaad, IRS, and such allegations are wholly unsubstantiated and lack in merit and however, the seriousness of the allegations has made the parties to seek for impleadment and they are entitled to the answer the allegations levelled against them and also to protect their commercial interest. 19. It is further submitted that the notification was uploaded only on 22.05.2017 and it will come into effect only on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... become effective. In support of such contention, reliance was placed on the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Ors., vs. Ganesh Das Bhojraj (supra). Further, it is submitted that for the sake of arguments, if a converse case is taken up for consideration, the Writ Petitioner would have come to Court challenging that the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition) had no jurisdiction on 18.05.2017, to initiate proceedings as notification was published only on 22.05.2017. 23. Mr.Sathish Parasaran, learned Senior counsel appearing for the impleading party referred to the decision in the case of R.Rajagopal Reddy vs. Padmini Chandrasekharan (supra) with regard to the aspect regarding retrospectivity and retroactivity of the amendment Act. For the said proposition, the learned counsel referred to the decision of the High Court of Gujarat in the case of Apex Electricals Ltd., vs. ICICI Bank Ltd [(2003)-117 Company cases 412] (Gujarat) and Mohan Lal vs. State of Rajasthan[(2015) 6 SCC 222] 24. Further, it is submitted that the impleading parties were the first to commence litigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and there is no plu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bita Rajesh Narang vs. Sandeep Gopal Raheja Ors., [Manu/MH/2397/2015], for the contention that the 2013 Act came into force before the present suit was filed. Section 89(8), makes it clear that absent the necessary declaration, no right in relation to that shareholding is enforceable. This would have been entered on the companies' registers of members. There is no such case even made out. 26. It is further submitted that where a substantive power is conferred upon a Court or Tribunal, all incidental and ancillary power necessary for an effective exercise of the substantive power has to be inferred and in support of such contention, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Executive Officer Vice Chairman, Gujarat, Maritime Board vs. Haji Daud Haji Harun Abu Ors., [(1996) 11 SCC 23]. Therefore, it is submitted that the proposed parties shall be impleaded as the respondents in the case as when legal malafides are alleged, the party should be made a respondent to the proceedings and in support of such contention, reliance was placed on the decision in the case of Medley Minerals India Ltd., vs. State of Orissa [(2004) 12 SCC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of mentioning the specific post for the initiating authority, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd., vs. Jayaswals Neco Ltd., [(2001) 3 SCC 609]. Thus, it is submitted that Section 24 read with Section 2(19) and Section 59 makes it clear that it is only the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition), who has jurisdiction to initiate proceedings and not any Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. Further, it is submitted that the Act being a penal statute, cannot be retroactive and cannot be used to punish the petitioner for alleged offence which took place prior to new Act coming into force. In support of such contention, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ritesh Agarwal Anr., vs. Securities Exchange Board of India, [(2008) 8 SCC 205 (para 25)] and T.Barai vs. henry Ah Hoe Anr., [(1983) 1 SCC 177 (para 22)]. Further, it is submitted that the Act creates a new liability and therefore, can be only prospective. To support such contention, reliance was placed on the decision in the case of R.Rajagopal Reddy vs. Padmini Chandrasekharan [(1995) 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed or leased cannot justify an order of provisional attachment as required under Section 28BA of the Customs Act, 1962. Thus, for the above reasons, the learned Senior counsel prays that the impleading petitions may be dismissed and the Writ Petition may be allowed and the impugned proceedings may be quashed. 28.Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. 29.The following questions arise for consideration in these Writ Petitions:- (i) Whether the proposed parties, Mr.RR and Archer are proper and necessary parties to the Writ Petitions and should they be impleaded as respondents?; (ii) Whether the second respondent had jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice, dated 19.05.2017, the impugned prohibitory order, dated 19.05.2017, and the impugned attachment order dated 19.05.2017?; (iii) Whether the amended Act, namely, the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016, could be applied retrospectively/retroactively to cover the transactions done by the petitioners; and (iv) Whether the action of the second respondent Shri.R.V.Aroon Prasaad, I.R.S., is tainted with malafide and was based on extraneous consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e with regard to impleadment of parties is that the petitioner or the plaintiff being dominus litis may choose the persons against whom, he wishes to litigate and cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom, he does not seek any relief. But the Court is given the discretion to add as a party, any person who is found to be a necessary party or a proper party. Though the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable to a Writ proceedings, it has been held that principles analogous to the Code of Civil Procedure should be applied to a Writ proceedings as well [see Public Service Commission Uttaranchal vs. Manta Bish Ors., (2010) 12 SCC 204] 33.Order 1, Rule 10 (2) CPC is not about the right of a non party to be impleaded as a party, but about the judicial discretion of the Court to strike out or to add a party at any stage of the proceedings. A necessary party is one without whom, no order can be effectively made. A proper party is one, whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision of question involved in the proceedings.[see Mumbai International Airport Private Ltd vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Ltd., [(2010) 7 SCC 417]. 34 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2017, the impugned prohibitory order, dated 19.05.2017, and the impugned attachment order dated 19.05.2017. 36.The contention of the petitioner is that the notification in SO 1620(E), dated 18.05.2017, was published in the gazette of India, dated 18.05.2017, and comes into force on the said date. The said notification was issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 28(2) read with Section 59 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 and in supersession of CBDT notification No. SO 3290 (E), dated 25.10.2016, published in the Gazette of India, dated 25.10.2016, except as respects thinks done or omitted to be done before that super session and the Central Government directed that the Income Tax authorities, under Section 116 of the Act specified in column No.(2) of the Schedule to the notification having headquarters at the places specified in the corresponding entry in column No.(3), to exercise the powers and perform the functions of the authority under the Prohibition Benami Property Act 45 of 88 specified in the corresponding entries in column No.(4) in respect of territorial areas specified in the corr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Initiating Officer, as notified in the notification, dated 18.05.2017, could he have initiated proceedings under the Benami Act against the petitioner. 39. The petitioner's case is that the date of the gazette and the notification is 18.05.2017 and on and after the said date, it is only the income tax authority, who has been notified in the notification, who could exercise jurisdiction under the Benami Act. The respondents would contend that though the notification is dated 18.05.2017, the same was uploaded online by the Government of India Press, New Delhi on the website of E-Gazette only on 22.05.2017 and therefore, the notification would come into effect on and after the said date and not on 18.05.2017 and therefore, the second respondent was well within his jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under the Benami Act. 40. In Mayer Hans George (supra), one of the question, which fell for consideration is with regard to the date of coming into force of a notification issued by the Government of India, dated 25.08.1948, stating that gold and gold articles should not be brought into India or sent to India except with the general or special permission of the Reserve Bank o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in order to take effect, must be published or promulgated in some suitable manner, whether such publication or promulgation is prescribed by the parent statute or not. It will then take effect from the date of such publication or promulgation. It will take effect only when it is published through the customarily recognised official channel namely, official gazette or some other reasonable mode of publication. 42. In M/s.Pankaj Jain Agencies (supra), the Court, took into consideration the decision in the cases of Mayer Hans George (supra), B.K.Srinivasan (supra), it was held that the mode of publication being prescribed, notification will come into force from the date of its publication in official gazette and it is not necessary that the notification be made known or broadcast in same recognizable way to make it enforceable. 43. In Ganesh Das Bhojraj, (supra), the Court took into consideration the decision in the cases of Mayer Hans George (supra), B.K.Srinivasan (supra), and M/s.Pankaj Jain Agencies (supra), it was held that the method and mode provided for grant of exemption or withdrawal of exemption is issuance of notification in the official gazette and for bringing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 17, was uploaded online by the Government of India Press (Directorate of Printing) on the website of e-gazette on 22.05.2017. By reading the Press release, dated 29.10.2016, issued by the Press Bureau of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, it is submitted that physical printing was being done away with and it was decided to switch to exclusive e-publishing of all gazette notification by uploading read with Section 2(21) of the 2016 Act and Section 8 of the Information and Technology Act, the notification could have come into force only on 22.05.2017, by uploading on the e-gazette by the Directorate of Printing as mentioned in the notification itself. 46. The Directorate of Printing, Government of India vide letter dated 31.07.2017, addressed to the CBDT stated that the notification in question (18.05.2017) was received in the Press on 18.05.2017 at 07.20 p.m., without any special instructions that is urgent/priority etc., and Government of India Press, New Delhi, uploaded the notification on the website of e-gazette on 22.05.2017 at 18:06:31 hours. Based on such clarification, the CBDT, addressed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Judicial), vide letter dated 07.08.2017, stating th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de application dated 21.06.2017. In the said application, the following information was sought for (i) please state the date of publication of SO 1621(E) passed under sub-section (2) of Section 28 read with Section 59 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 by the Central Government (Department of Revenue) in the Gazette of India; (ii) please state the date on which SO 1621(E) comes into effect; (iii) please state the date on which SO1621(E) was digitally signed; (iv) please state whether applicable date for coming into force of SO 1621(E) is the date of publication in the gazette or the date of digital signature; (v) please state if the department can make publications in the gazette of India without a digital signature;(vi) please state reason for mismatch, if any, between the date of publication of SO 1621(E) in the Gazette of India and the date of digital signature. 49. Though the petitioner raised six queries, the Department of Publication answered query No.(i) by stating that the date of e-publication on e-gazette website is 18.05.2017. With regard to the other questions, it was stated that it is closely related to Government of India Press, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s.Pankaj Jain Agencies (supra). Interestingly, the authority who is competent to speak on the date of publication has stated that the date of e-publication on e-gazette website is 18.05.2017. Thus, the date of uploading by the Directorate of Printing is of no consequence and what is relevant, is the date as certified by the Department of Publication that is on 18.05.2017. 52. Having steered heard of this legal/factual position, it has to be seen as to whether the second respondent could have exercised jurisdiction as an Initiating Officer. 53. Section 2(19) defines 'Initiating Officer' to mean an Assistant Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner as defined in clauses (9A) and (19A) respectively of Section 2 of the Income Tax Act,1961. Section 2(21) defines notification to mean a notification published in the official gazette and the expression notified shall be construed accordingly. 54. Section 18 deals with authorities and jurisdiction , under sub-section (1) of Section 18, the following shall be the authorities for the purposes of the Benami Act, (a) Initiating Officer; (b) Approving Authority; (c) Administrator and (d) the Adjudicating Authority. Sub-section ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in clauses 9A and 19A respectively of Section 2 of Income Tax Act and the second respondent being a Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax was well within his jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 24 of the Act. This argument could have been accepted, but for the notification, dated 18.05.2017. As noted earlier, the notification in SO 1620 (E) was issued in exercise of the powers conferred on the Government of India under Section 59 of the Act, which provision empowers the Central Government to issue directions and while issuing directions, the Central Government may have regard to the territorial area or classes of persons or classes of cases or any other criterion that may be specified by the Central Government. In exercise of such power, the notification has specifically mentioned an Officer in the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition)/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition) as Initiating Officer. Sub-section (1) of Section 59 states that when Central Government issues directions all persons employed in execution of the Act shall observe and follow the orders, instructions and directions of the Central Government. Therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers of customs, who are assigned the functions of assessment, which would include reassessment, working under the jurisdictional Collectorate within whose jurisdiction, the bills of entry or package declaration had been filed and consignment had been cleared for home consumption will have jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 28 of the Customs Act. 59. Thus, when the Central Government has specified that the Initiating Officer having headquarters at Chennai, whose territorial area is within the limits of State of Tamil Nadu and Union Territory of Puducherry (including Karaikal, but excluding Mahe and Yanum), shall only be the Deputy Commissioner of the Income Tax (Benami Prohibition) and not any other Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. The above mentioned interpretation becomes clearer, if we look at Section 34 of the Benami Act. The said Section falls in Chapter IV of the Act dealing with attachment, adjudication and confiscation. Section 24(1) of the Act deals with notice an attachment of property involved in Benami Transaction. Sub-section (1) states where the Initiating Officer, on the basis of material in his possession, has reason to believe that any person is a Benam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not any bank. Therefore, it was held the bank referred to in clause (a) to the proviso to Section 138 of the NI Act would mean the drawee bank, on which the cheque is drawn and not all banks, where the cheque is presented for collection including the bank of the payee, in whose favour, the cheque is issued. 61. As pointed out earlier, Section 24 of the Act refers to the Initiating Officer . Therefore, it denotes 'a particular officer or a person' and it cannot be generalised and stated that all Deputy Commissioners of Income Tax and Assistant Commissioners of Income Tax can function as the Initiating Officer under Section 24. Thus, the only and correct conclusion would be that the Initiating Officer in the instant case can be either an Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition), Chennai or the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition), Chennai and not any other Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax or Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and the second respondent not being the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition), Chennai, was denuded of jurisdiction to act as the Initiating Officer , on and after 18.05.2017, that being the dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said doctrine, the Apex Court pointed out that the defacto doctrine requires two requisites namely, (i) the possession of the office and the performance of the duties attached thereto and (ii) colour of title, i.e., apparent right to the office and acquiescence in the possession thereof by public. It was pointed out that according to the doctrine, the acts of officers defacto perform within the sphere of their assumed official authority in the interest of the public or third parties and not for their own interest or generally held valid and binding, as if they were performed by de jure officers. The Court referred to the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Jayakumar vs. State , 1968 Allahabad Law Journal 877, upheld the judgment of the District Judges, whose appointments were later struck down by the Supreme Court on the principle that the acts of officers defacto or not to be questioned because of want of legal authority except by some direct proceedings instituted for the purpose by state or by some one claiming the office dejuri, or except when the person himself attempts to build up some right, or claim some privilege or benefit by reason of being the officer which he cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
