ADVOCATE ASSOCIATION BENGALURU versus ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA AND ANR

ADVOCATE ASSOCIATION BENGALURU versus ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA AND ANR

The Court directed that the Union Government must place all relevant material, including feedback and any underlying tangible material available with the Government, before the Search-cum-Selection Committee within one week so the SCSC can consider whether any modification of its recommendations is warranted; accordingly the feedback before the competent authority must be placed before the SCSC and reconsidered if necessary. In view of these directions, it was not expedient to pursue contempt proceedings, which were re-numbered as an interlocutory application, and the vacancies in the ITAT are to be duly filled; the Court will be apprised of the decision after reconsideration.

Parties
Petitioner: Advocate Association Bengaluru; Respondent: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta; Respondent: Anr
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
17 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Contempt Petition (c) No.708 of 2021; in WP (c) No.502 of 2021 / Judgment
Outcome
Contempt petition not pursued; re-numbered as interlocutory application; directions issued for reconsideration of recommendations and filling of vacancies
Legal Topics
Appointments to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Search Cum Selection Committee (scsc), Intelligence Bureau Reports and Vetting, Tribunals Reforms Act 2021, Use of Wait List Vs Main List
Contempt of Court Administrative Law Tribunals Appointments Appointments to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Search Cum Selection Committee (scsc) Intelligence Bureau Reports and Vetting Tribunals Reforms Act 2021 +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Advocate Association Bengaluru

Petitioner

Anoop Kumar Mendiratta

Respondent

Anr

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Petition (c) No.708 of 2021; in WP (c) No.502 of 2021 / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether inputs or feedback obtained by the competent authority after SCSC recommendations can be acted upon without placing them before the SCSC for reconsideration
  2. 2 Whether appointment from the wait list was permissible prior to exhausting the main list and whether ranking by the SCSC must be followed
  3. 3 Whether exercise of contempt jurisdiction was warranted in the facts of the case

Ratio Decidendi

The Court directed that the Union Government must place all relevant material, including feedback and any underlying tangible material available with the Government, before the Search-cum-Selection Committee within one week so the SCSC can consider whether any modification of its recommendations is warranted; accordingly the feedback before the competent authority must be placed before the SCSC and reconsidered if necessary. In view of these directions, it was not expedient to pursue contempt proceedings, which were re-numbered as an interlocutory application, and the vacancies in the ITAT are to be duly filled; the Court will be apprised of the decision after reconsideration.

Court Disposition

Contempt petition not pursued; re-numbered as interlocutory application; directions issued for reconsideration of recommendations and filling of vacancies

Orders

  • Union Government to place all relevant material, including feedback and any underlying tangible material, before the SCSC within one week from the date of judgment
  • A meeting of the SCSC to be convened thereafter to consider whether any modification in the terms of its recommendations is warranted