Uday Pratap Singh vs Union Of India And 5 Others
- Neutral2026:AHC:103421
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A relief claimed against the D.F.C.C.I. is not maintainable before the Central Administrative Tribunal where there is no requisite notification applying the provisions of the Administrative Tribunal Act to that Corporation, and the Tribunal's dismissal of an application on this ground of lack of maintainability cannot be interfered with in a writ petition.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Shashi Prakash Singh (A.S.G.I.), C.S.C., Jigyasa Singh, Usha Kiran
Chief Justice's Court
HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 04.02.2026 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad whereby the Original Application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed as not maintainable.
2. The Original Application was filed by the petitioner, inter alia, seeking a direction to the Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Ltd. ('D.F.C.C.I.') to accord appointment to him in terms of the notification dated 16.07.2010, Annexure-2, wherein a specific assurance was given that the land losers would be accorded appointment by the Railways.
3. The Original Application was contested by the respondents, inter alia, on the ground that the petition against the D.F.C.C.I. before the Tribunal was not maintainable as no notification in this regard has been issued.
4. Besides the same, reliance was placed on a communication dated 24.04.2014 indicating that the Railway Board, had made the policy of providing appointment in case of land acquired for Railway and its production units and not for Railway Public Sector Undertaking, based on which the Original Application came to be dismissed.
5. Counsel for the petitioner attempted to make submissions that the petitioner has been made to lose his land based on assurance containing in communication dated 16.07.2010 and therefore, the respondents are bound to fulfill the assurance given.
6. Submissions made are besides the points in so far as the Original Application filed before the Tribunal is concerned, inasmuch as the relief claimed against the D.F.C.C.I., apparently was not maintainable before the Tribunal for lack of requisite notification applying the provisions of the Act to the said Corporation.
7. In so far as the grievance as raised is concerned, the remedy lies somewhere else.
8. In that view of the matter, no case for interfering in the order passed by the Tribunal is made out. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
(Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.)
May 6, 2026
Mukesh Pal/Jyotsana
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