Legal Correspondent
Shimla, January 10
THE CASE
-
The court passed the judgment on a petition filed by Income Tax Inspector Varun Khari, who challenged the Woman Commission's communication to the Income Tax Chief Commissioner whereby it had requested that the petitioner may not be transferred from Shimla till the finalisation of a complaint filed by his wife against him before the commission
No doubt the HP State Woman Commission is empowered to look into the complaints and take suo motu notice of the matters pertaining to deprivation of the rights of the women but, is bound to act within the four-corners of the statute that created it.
This was held by the HP High Court while dealing with the question of powers of the Woman Commission. A division Bench comprising Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice CB Barowalia further observed that "the Commission is a creation of the statute and, therefore, is bound to act within the four corners of the statute."
The court passed this judgment on a petition filed by an Income Tax Inspector, Varun Khari challenging the communication issued by the Woman Commission to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax whereby it had requested that the petitioner may not be transferred from Shimla till the finalisation of a complaint filed by his wife against him before the commission.
While setting aside the communication issued by the Woman Commission, the court observed that "the communication is not in the form of advisories and, therefore, we have no hesitation to conclude that the procedure adopted by the State Commission is without any authority as the Commission is not entitled to issue the advisories to the employer of the petitioner that too without any information to him."
It is alleged in the petition that the communication issued on January 30, 2018, by the State Woman Commission is illegal and without any authority. It was further contended that the Commission had no jurisdiction to even request the I-T Chief Commissioner not to transfer the petitioner from Shimla till the finalisation of this case and asking him not to permit the petitioner to vacate the premises in question. This is beyond powers vested with the Commission under the Act.
Courtesy: Tribune News Service
Post a Comment