Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 231 (MEG)

Kamaraj Jk v. Union of India

2022-08-30

H.S.THANGKHIEW

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner appearing in person is before this Court, seeking directions to command the respondents who are executives in the United India Insurance Company, to adhere to the Financial Standing Order of 2014, which he alleges is being violated due to problems in the Company Software GC-Core. The petitioner's case is basically on the ground that though, the respondent Company had published the Financial Standing Order, 2014, with regard to delegation of financial powers with the maximum financial limit prescribed therein, the same had been violated in its implementation due to the GC-Core Software being used by the respondent Company for performing its business. It is the petitioner's case that though, he had informed the Authorities to remove the deviation of the Financial Standing Order in GC-Core Software, the same has not been rectified, which has led him to approach this Court by way of this writ petition. 2. When the matter was taken up for consideration, the counsel for the respondents, Mr. S. Jindal, at the outset had raised questions on the maintainability of the writ petition, and as the question of maintainability on the facts of the case appears to be crucial, the same is being taken up as a preliminary issue. An affidavit questioning the maintainability has also been filed by the respondents to which a rejoinder has also been given by the petitioner. 3. The objections to the maintainability are on the following grounds: - (i) That the facts of the case nowhere pertain to any violation of the petitioner's fundamental or other rights by the respondents, and the only allegation is that the respondent does not follow its own Financial Standing Order, 2014, in its internal process which is being done through the Company Software GC-Core. (ii) The Financial Standing Order, 2014, which is relied upon heavily by the petitioner has since been revised by Circular No. HO: FSO 2018-19, and is in the nature of instructions. FSO 2014 lacks any statutory flavour and cannot be considered as law under Article 13 of the Constitution of India, or even as Rules contemplated under the proviso of Article 309 of the Constitution. Thus, the issue is not maintainable to warrant exercise of powers under Article 226 by the High Court. FSO 2014 lacks any statutory flavour and cannot be considered as law under Article 13 of the Constitution of India, or even as Rules contemplated under the proviso of Article 309 of the Constitution. Thus, the issue is not maintainable to warrant exercise of powers under Article 226 by the High Court. (iii) FSO 2014 being in the nature of instructions, any violation by an employee can only lead to departmental proceedings, and no public law element is involved in the case to warrant any adjudication by the High Court. (iv) Petitioner has not alleged violation of any fundamental or other rights and the writ petition only contains a weak contention that the alleged glitches in the GC Core Software is affecting a selected few departments in the respondent Insurance Company, and not other departments, as such, the allegations so raised relate to IT issues, and not at all connected with the violation of any fundamental rights. (v) By alleging that the said glitch in the GC-Core Software affects just some departments and not others, disputed and highly technical questions of facts have been raised which cannot be adjudicated by this Court in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. (vi) The petitioner does not have locus standi to file this writ petition, as he is seeking to his espouse the cause of unnamed employees. 4. In support of the objections on the questions of maintainability, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions: i) Union of India vs. S.L. Abbas (1993) 4 SCC 357 , Para 6 and 7. ii) Devapriya Choudhury vs. The Union of India & Ors., and Shri Subir Sircar vs. The North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors., judgment dated 27.08.2019 in W.P(C) No. 258 of 2018 & W.P (C) No. 319 of 2018. iii) K.K. Saxena vs. International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage, (2015) 4 SCC 670 . 5. The writ petitioner while resisting the challenge to the maintainability of the writ petition has submitted that, firstly, the case laws referred to by the counsel for the respondent will have no application to the instant case, inasmuch as, in the instant case, due to the violation of FSO 2014, public money is at stake and hence, this Court has the powers to adjudicate. It is further submitted that, the respondent Company is governed by the Companies Act, 2013, General Insurance Business Nationalisation Act, 1972 and other laws, and as such, violation of FSO 2014, in the Software amounts to violation of the statutory provisions contained in the governing acts. It is then contended that, though internal guidelines of an organization do not have the force of statutory rules, deviation from the said guidelines should be valid and justified, which is not so in the instant case, wherein violation of FSO 2014 has occurred. 6. It is submitted that, public element involved in this writ petition is public money, and that even if the personal authority does not come within the meaning of Article 12, but is performing public duty, a writ petition will lie, and appropriate writs can be issued. It is also submitted that, the respondent Company being a public sector company wholly owned by the Government of India, the Board of Directors while dealing public money in FSO 2014, are expected to perform the job in public interest and are not expected to be arbitrary in the decision-making process, by allowing the violation of FSO 2014, in the Company Software. 7. Efforts have been made by the writ petitioner to show that the respondent Company is a public financial institution, and functions under the control of the Ministry of Finance, by contending that FSO 2014, was approved by the Board of Directors of the respondent Company, which is wholly owned by the Government of India, under the duties and powers vested upon the said Board of Directors under Section 166 and 179 of the Companies Act, 2013. Is has been further submitted that the Board of Directors have to accord their approval for any revision in the financial limit in all departments, such as the Accounts Department or Claims Department, and as such, the violation of FSO 2014, in the respondent Company Software, public law element was involved. 8. It has been further submitted that the Officers of the respondent Company are 'public servants' under the provisions of Section 21(12)(b) under the Indian Penal Code and under Section 2(c)(iii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and that these Officers discharge 'public duty' as defined in Section 2(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 8. It has been further submitted that the Officers of the respondent Company are 'public servants' under the provisions of Section 21(12)(b) under the Indian Penal Code and under Section 2(c)(iii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and that these Officers discharge 'public duty' as defined in Section 2(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is then contended that, as FSO 2014, deals with financial limits of public money, violation of the same leads to violation of public duty by a public servant, and as such, the writ petition is maintainable. 9. It is also submitted that, the petitioner had taken measures to bring to the notice of the respondents regarding the violation of FSO 2014, in Company Software, but the same was not given any attention. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (1981) Supp 1 SCC 87, to support his arguments that any member of the public acting bona fide and having sufficient interest can maintain an action for redressal of such public wrong or public injury. The petitioner has also cited the following judgments in support of his case on the question of maintainability: i) ABL International Ltd. vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited & Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 553 . ii) Noida Entrepreneurs Association vs. NOIDA & Ors. (2011) 6 SCC 508 . 10. It is lastly submitted that, the respondents have failed in their public duty towards public interest in handling public money by violating public law by acting arbitrarily and illegally in violating the FSO 2014 in the Company Software, and as such, the writ petition is maintainable. 11. Dr. N. Mozika, learned ASG for the respondent No. 1 apart from endorsing the submissions of Mr. S. Jindal, learned counsel for the respondent Company submits that what has been stated and brought out in the writ petition are the internal affairs of the company itself, and no mandamus can issue in this regard. 12. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, and the petitioner in person, as noted earlier, the question of maintainability is crucial and central to the writ petition. From the submissions of the petitioner in person, the first, question that arises is as to his locus in preferring the instant writ petition. 12. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, and the petitioner in person, as noted earlier, the question of maintainability is crucial and central to the writ petition. From the submissions of the petitioner in person, the first, question that arises is as to his locus in preferring the instant writ petition. The petitioner has nowhere shown that any personal injury has been caused on him, but at the most it can be discerned that the cause of unknown persons or entities is sought to be espoused by the instant writ petition. Nowhere, does the instant writ petition refer to any occurrence or incident to show as to how the action of the respondent Company has resulted in the violation of the petitioner's fundamental or other legal rights. The pleadings also, only touch upon the transgressions that may occur when working with the GC-Core Software, with regard to exercise of financial powers by the Officers. 13. The next question that, needs to be examined is the exact nature of these Financial Standing Orders (FSO) in this case, FSO 2014; and as to whether they can be considered to be statutory in nature. A perusal of the FSO 2014, as annexed to the writ petition, clearly shows that the same is in the nature of instructions, and therefore, lack any statutory flavour and as such, cannot be considered or construed as law under Article 13, or even as Rules as contemplated under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. This is evidenced by the description itself which is extracted hereinbelow: 'FINANCIAL STANDING ORDER 2014 DELEGATION OF FINANCIAL POWERS I. APPLICABILITY AND DATE OF COMMENCEMENT The Financial Authority, Powers and Limits prescribed in this order shall extend to and cover all the offices of the Company in India and shall come into force with effect from 21.10.2014. This order shall supersede all previous instructions with regard to matters concerning Financial Authority, Powers and Limits.' 14. This order shall supersede all previous instructions with regard to matters concerning Financial Authority, Powers and Limits.' 14. On to the other aspects of the case as presented, it is noted that, technical and disputed questions of fact have been raised by the petitioner, with regard to the functioning of the GC-Core Software, being used by the respondent Company by alleging that, non-correction of glitches in the software has affected certain departments in the Company with regard to the limits of financial powers to be exercised by respective Officers in their respective capacities. To illustrate this particular aspect, Paras - 6 and 7 of the writ petition are reproduced herein below: '6. That, the Petitioner begs to state that while carrying out his work as Third Party Claim handler, to disburse Motor Accident Claim cases in the Respondent Company Software, GC-Core, he has observed that the financial limits set in the Financial Standing Order 2014, are grossly violated as even the Lowest specified rank can exercise financial powers, exceeding the maximum financial limit up to which a specified rank should exercise Financial powers, as mentioned in Annexure I - Section E - Claims department of the Financial Standing Order 2014. 7. That, the Petitioner begs to state that on his research, he found that the violation occurs only in the Annexure I - Section E - Claim departments, Sl No 4 Motor Own Damage Department, Sl No 5 Motor Third Party Department, and Sl No 6 Lok Adalats, while in all other Departments like Fire Department, Marine Hull Department, Marine Cargo Department etc, the GC Core Software duly prepares a Claim Note and escalates it to the appropriate Officer having financial powers, as per the Financial Standing orders 2014 and the Officer having financial powers approves the Claim Note prepared by the Respondent Company Software GC Core.' The above noted averments, amply demonstrate the question and presence of technical and disputed facts that cannot be gone into in a writ petition. 15. This Court therefore, finds force in the submissions as put forward by the counsel for the respondents on the ground of maintainability. 15. This Court therefore, finds force in the submissions as put forward by the counsel for the respondents on the ground of maintainability. It is also observed further that, though the respondent Company may be a wholly owned concern of the Government of India, the questions raised and the relief sought by the petitioner, however, do not come within the realm of public law to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. 16. In view of the facts of the case, the authorities relied upon by the petitioner are of no assistance as this case stands on a completely different footing. However, before parting with the records the respondent company would be well advised to consider and examine the issues raised in this writ petition at their own level. 17. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is accordingly dismissed as not being maintainable. 18. Parties to bear their own costs.