A.I.C.C. Of Trade Unions And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr.
- SCC(2003) 10 SCC 292
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a petitioner seeks direction for the grant of financial assistance from the State, the court will not adjudicate on the merits of distribution of funds or the extent of financial assistance, but will instead direct the competent administrative authority to consider and dispose of a pending representation with a reasoned order within a specified period, leaving the substantive decision on eligibility and quantum to the administrative authority's discretion based on available financial resources and the principles of parity with similarly situated institutions.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
2. The petitioner has filed a writ petition in this Court seeking direction to the respondents to frame a scheme ensuring adequate means of livelihood, living wages, conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities towards all the members of the petitioner No. 2 Association. According to the petitioner, there exists a scheme of financial assistance to voluntary associations to set up family counselling centers and reference made to the terms and conditions for sanction of grant in the said scheme which is annexed as Annexure P4 to the petition. When the matter was taken up earlier, this Court passed an Order in which six weeks' time was granted to the petitioner to submit a representation to the Government in the light of the letter of the Minister of Human Resources Development, India dated December 20, 1996. We are informed, such application has already been made in October, 1999 and since then no order has been passed.
3. According to the learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, the submission is, grants are given to the institution, which depends on the financial resources at a particular time. However, we do not find it proper to enter into the area of distribution or to what extent the financial assistance could be granted to the petitioners. Only grievance of the petitioner is that institutions similarly situated as the petitioner the grant is being given hence on the same parity, the same should be considered for the petitioner's. We leave the matter for adjudication to the respondent authority. At best, at this juncture, we feel it appropriate to direct the respondent No. 2 to dispose of the said representation filed in October, 1999 within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed along with another copy of the aforesaid application already filed. In case such a representation is filed within a period of four months from today, the same should be disposed of by respondent No. 2, as aforesaid within the said period with a reasoned order.
4. With the said observation, the writ petition is finally disposed of.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free