Subject

1. Constitution - Writ - Election Law

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Article 226, 243-O

Questions Referred

(a) Whether, constitutional remedy of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which has been recognised as a basic feature of constitution in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, 1997 (3) SCC 261 could be curtailed in view of the bar created under Article 243-O of the Constitution of India?

(b) Whether, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be refused to be entertained for the reason that a notification for holding the Panchayat elections has been issued by the State in view of Article 243-O of the Constitution of India, even where: (i) vires of election laws is questioned, (ii) Government Orders issued for effecting the election are stated to be in breach of election laws/arbitrary, (iii) actual implementation by the State of election laws/Government Orders is stated to be in breach of the provisions, (iv) any other similar issue?

(c) Whether, the High Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can interfere in the election process, if the elections are not being held in accordance with the Constitution of India or there is inherent defects or breaches of the election law making the entire election a mockery or a farce?

(d) Whether, this Court would permit ongoing process of election, in the facts of the present case, or not?

(e) Whether, the vires of the election laws as well as reservation of seats can be subjected to challenge only in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or else the aggrieved person is rendered remedy less?

(f) Whether, the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Rishipal Singh v. State of U.P. and others (supra) has laid down the correct law?

Subject

1. Constitution - Writ - Education Service

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950,

Section - Article 226

Questions Referred

(I) Whether private institutions imparting education perform public duty, a State function, making them amenable to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?

(ii) Whether the Full Bench decision rendered in M.K. Gandhi and Division Bench judgment in Anjani Kumar Srivastava requires to be revisited in view of the Supreme Court decision rendered in Ramesh Ahluwalia.?

Subject

1. Constitution - Writ - Education Service

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950,

Section - Article 12 and 226

Questions Referred

(i) Whether the element of public function and public duty inherent in the enterprise that an educational institution undertakes, conditions of service of teachers, whose functions are a sine qua non to the discharge of that public function or duty, can be regarded as governed by the private law of contract and with no remedy available under Article 226 of the Constitution?

(ii) Whether the decision in Rajesh Kumar Srivastava and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2020(2) ADJ 409 is in teeth of the holding of the full bench in Roychan Abraham v. State of U.P. and others, 2019(3) ADJ 391 (FB)?

Subject

1. Constitution - Writ - Special Appeal - Service Law

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950,

Section - Article 226 and 225

Questions Referred

(a) Whether an intra Court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules against a judgment of single Judge in a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India preferred against an order passed by an authority exercising appellate or revisional power under U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981 would be maintainable?

(b) Whether the Division Bench decision in the case of U.P.S.R.T.C. Thru R.M. v. Abhay Raj Singh and 2 others (supra) or the earlier two Division Bench decisions, namely, Jageshwar Prasad Tiwari v. U.P.S.R.T.C. and others (supra) and Madan Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and others (supra), lays down the correct law ?

Subject

1. Constitution - Writ - Special Appeal - Service Law

Statutes

Act Name - Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, 0000

Section - Chapter VIII Rule 5

Questions Referred

(a) Whether an intra Court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules against a judgment of single Judge in a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India preferred against an order passed by an authority exercising appellate or revisional power under U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981 would be maintainable?

(b) Whether the Division Bench decision in the case of U.P.S.R.T.C. Thru R.M. v. Abhay Raj Singh and 2 others (supra) or the earlier two Division Bench decisions, namely, Jageshwar Prasad Tiwari v. U.P.S.R.T.C. and others (supra) and Madan Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and others (supra), lays down the correct law ?

Subject

1. Constitution - Writ - Special Appeal - Service Law

Statutes

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981, 0000

Section -

Questions Referred

(a) Whether an intra Court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules against a judgment of single Judge in a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India preferred against an order passed by an authority exercising appellate or revisional power under U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981 would be maintainable?

(b) Whether the Division Bench decision in the case of U.P.S.R.T.C. Thru R.M. v. Abhay Raj Singh and 2 others (supra) or the earlier two Division Bench decisions, namely, Jageshwar Prasad Tiwari v. U.P.S.R.T.C. and others (supra) and Madan Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and others (supra), lays down the correct law ?

Subject

1. Circular
2. Tax - Indirect - Sales Tax

Statutes

Act Name - U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008, 2008

Section - S.52, S.79

Questions Referred

(i) Which of the two cases i.e. M/s. Prakash Transport Corporation v. CCT or M/s. S.B. International Gularbhoj v. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax Lucknow, lays down the correct proposition of law?

(ii) Whether the Transit Declaration Form (TDF) is mandatory requirement in view to the circular issued by the Commissioner read with Section 52 of the Act and Rule 58 of the Rules or in the alternative upon non-production of the TDF on interception of the goods whether a presumption that the goods are meant for sale within the State can mandatorily be drawn in view of Section 52 read with Rule 58 and the circular dated 3 September 2013 issued by the Commissioner?

Subject

1. Interpretation of Statutes
2. Civil Law - Municipalities

Statutes

Act Name - U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, 1916

Section - S. 48 (2a)

Questions Referred

Whether, notwithstanding the words 'such enquiry as it may consider necessary' used in Section 48(2A) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, the State Government is obliged to hold a full fledged enquiry in every case where the State Government does not agree with the explanation of the President?

Subject

1. Territorial Jurisdiction
2. Civil Law - Agrarian

Statutes

Act Name - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954, 1954

Section - S.48, S.11

Questions Referred

Whether the territorial jurisdiction to entertain/decide appeal or revision, against the order passed on the objection or appeal transferred outside the district will be at the transferred district or at the district where the subject-matter of dispute/unit situates?

Subject

1. Criminal Law - Preventive Detention
2. Right to Represent
3. Communication to detainee regarding his right to represent
4. Power to revoke or modify detention order

Statutes

Act Name - National Security Act, 1980, 1980

Section - S.14, 3(2)

Questions Referred

(1) Whether the District Magistrate/Detaining Authority acting under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act is required to communicate to the person detained, regarding right of making re-presentation to him in view of Apex Court's decision in Kamlesh Kumar's case (supra)? If so, non-communication would infringe fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution?

(2) If the answer of question No. 1 is in the affirmative, whether there is obligation on the District Magistrate (Detaining Authority) to communicate the detenu's right within which the detenu is required to make re-presentation to him i.e. before approval of the detention order by the State Government or before 12 days ? If so non-communication of above period will render the detention order invalid?

(3) Whether the District Magistrate/Detaining Authority has power to revoke or modify the detention order passed by him after its approval by the State Government? (4) Whether there is obligation on the District Magistrate/Detaining Authority to consider and decide the re-presentation of the detenu even after approval of the detention order by the State Government ?

Subject

1. Criminal Law - Preventive Detention
2. Right to Represent
3. Communication to detainee regarding his right to represent
4. Power to revoke or modify detention order

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art. 22

Questions Referred

(1) Whether the District Magistrate/Detaining Authority acting under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act is required to communicate to the person detained, regarding right of making re-presentation to him in view of Apex Court's decision in Kamlesh Kumar's case (supra)? If so, non-communication would infringe fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution?

(2) If the answer of question No. 1 is in the affirmative, whether there is obligation on the District Magistrate (Detaining Authority) to communicate the detenu's right within which the detenu is required to make re-presentation to him i.e. before approval of the detention order by the State Government or before 12 days ? If so non-communication of above period will render the detention order invalid?

(3) Whether the District Magistrate/Detaining Authority has power to revoke or modify the detention order passed by him after its approval by the State Government? (4) Whether there is obligation on the District Magistrate/Detaining Authority to consider and decide the re-presentation of the detenu even after approval of the detention order by the State Government ?

Subject

1. Service Law - Education - Shiksha Mitra
2. Ban on Appointment

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Article 16

Questions Referred

(A) Whether mere selection on a date prior to 2.6.2010 will confer a right upon the incumbent to claim appointment and for being sent for training as Shiksha Mitra even after the State Government has imposed a ban on such appointment on 2.6.2010 and the scheme of Shiksha Mitra itself has been dropped by the State Government?

(B) Whether the law laid down by the Division Bench in the case of Sonika Verma v. State of U.P. and others (supra) or the law laid down by the Division Benches in the case of Km. Rekha Singh v. State of U.P. and others (supra) and in the case of Pankaj Kumar v. State of U.P. and others (supra) is the correct law?

Subject

1. Service Law - Education
2. Teachers Eligibility Test
3. Words and Phrases - Minimum Qualifications

Statutes

Act Name - Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, 2009

Section - S. 21 (1)

Questions Referred

(a) What does the phrase ''minimum qualifications'' occurring in Section 23 (1) of the right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (the Act) mean - whether passing the 'Teacher's Eligibility Test', is a qualification for the purposes of Section 23 (1), and it insistence by the NCTE in the Notification dated 23.8.2010 is in consonance with the powers delegated to the NCTE under Section 23 (1) of the Act?

(b) Whether clause 3 (a) of the Notifications dated 23.8.2010 and 29.7.2011 issued by the NCTE under Section 23 (1) of the Act, permits persons coming under the ambit of that clause to not undergo the 'Teacher's Eligibility Test', before they are eligible for appointment as Assistant Teachers? What is the significance of the words ''shall also be eligible for appointment for Class-I to V upto 1st January, 2012, provided he undergoes, after appointment an NCTE recognized six months special programme in elementary education?

(c) Whether the opinion expressed by the Division Bench in Prabhakar Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2013 (1) ADJ 651 (DB), is correct in law?

Subject

1. Civil Law - Agrarian Law
2. Constitution - Article 226 - Maintainability

Statutes

Act Name - U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951, 1951

Section - S. 122 B

Questions Referred

(i) Whether as per Section 122-B, sub-section (4-C), (4-D) and (4-E) of the U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act, 1950, civil suit is the appropriate remedy to resolve the dispute?

(ii)Whether writ petition could lie against any order under sub-section irrespective of availability of alternative and efficacious remedy of civil suit?

Subject

1. Juvenility
2. Right to Juvenility - how claimed
3. Doctrine of finality
4. Criminal Law - Juvenile Justice

Statutes

Act Name - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, 2000

Section - S.7-A and 68

Questions Referred

(I) Whether the right of a juvenile to raise the issue of juvenility can be denied, by dismissing a writ petition as infructuous and then permitting him to raise the issue in a criminal appeal when the same issue had been raised before the Juvenile Justice Board and an appeal had been decided in accordance with Section 52 of the 2000 Act as in the present case, on applying the doctrine of finality?

(ii) Whether the law laid down by prescribing a procedure of allowing the question to be raised in a criminal appeal as an alternate substitute through a miscellaneous application under the judgment dated 13.10.2014 by the learned Single Judge is correct or not? (iii) Whether in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court particularly in the case of Abuzar Hossain @ Gulam Hossain (supra) and Abdul Razzaq v. State of U.P. (supra), the issue presently raised, would also stand covered by the ratio and the observations made therein or not ?

Subject

1. Criminal Law - Juvenile Justice

Statutes

Act Name - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, 2000

Section - S.7-A and 68

Questions Referred

Whether the U.P. Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Rules 2004 need be recast consequent upon addition of Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (as amended by Act No. 33 of 2006)?

Subject

1. Criminal Law - Juvenile Justice

Statutes

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2004, 0000

Section -

Questions Referred

Whether the U.P. Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Rules 2004 need be recast consequent upon addition of Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (as amended by Act No. 33 of 2006)?

Subject

1. Gairpushtaini Farmers
2. Civil Law - Land Acquisition
3. Pushtaini Farmers
4. Reasonable Classification

Statutes

Act Name - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, 1894

Section - S.23, S.24 and S.55

Questions Referred

(i) Whether the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Madhuri Srivastava, reported in 2016 (6) ADJ 1 is in conflict with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Nagpur Improvement Trust and another v. Vithal Rao and others, (1973) 1 SCC 500 and also with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?

(ii) Whether the classification made under the U.P. Land Acquisition (Determination of Compensation and Declaration of Award by Agreement) Rules 1997, the distinction made among ''Pushtaini and Gairpushtaini Farmers'' is a classification reasonable having nexus with the objects sought to be achieved?

Subject

1. Gairpushtaini Farmers
2. Civil Law - Land Acquisition
3. Pushtaini Farmers
4. Reasonable Classification

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Article 14

Questions Referred

(i) Whether the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Madhuri Srivastava, reported in 2016 (6) ADJ 1 is in conflict with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Nagpur Improvement Trust and another v. Vithal Rao and others, (1973) 1 SCC 500 and also with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?

(ii) Whether the classification made under the U.P. Land Acquisition (Determination of Compensation and Declaration of Award by Agreement) Rules 1997, the distinction made among ''Pushtaini and Gairpushtaini Farmers'' is a classification reasonable having nexus with the objects sought to be achieved?

Subject

1. Tax - Income Tax

Statutes

Act Name - Income Tax Act, 1961,

Section - 254(1), 12AA

Questions Referred

(i) Whether Income Tax Appellate Tribunal while hearing Appeal in a matter where registration under Section 12AA has been denied by Commissioner Income Tax can itself pass an order directing Commissioner to grant registration or should leave the matter to be considered by Commissioner Income Tax to consider matter afresh giving rise to further litigation in the matter?

(ii) Whether co-extensive Appellate jurisdiction conferred upon Income Tax Appellate Tribunal being a last court of fact can be read to confer upon it similar powers as been exercised by authorities below whose orders are considered in Appeals by Tribunal?

Subject

1. Constitution - Writ - Service Law

Statutes

Act Name - Police Act, 1861,

Section - 11(1)

Questions Referred

(i) Whether the judgments of the Full Bench in Rajendra Kumar Mishra Vs. Union of India and the Division Bench in The Director General CRPF, New Delhi Vs. Constable Lalji Pandey are still good law in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs. Union of India and others? 2005 (1) UPLBEC 108,  Special Appeal No. 342 of 2010, (2014) 9 SCC 329?

(ii) Whether the decisions of the Division Bench in Bibhuti Narain Singh Vs. Food Corporation of India and others and Har Govind Singh Vs. Union of India and others are good law on the subject in the light of judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Nawal Kishore Sharma? Special Appeal Defective No. 785 of 2014, Special Appeal No 158 of 2016?

(iii) Whether there is any conflict of opinion in the decisions of the Full Bench in Rajendra Kumar Mishra and Division Bench in Constable Lalji Pandey on one hand and in Bibhuti Narain Singh and Har Govind Singh on the other in the matter of exercise of territorial jurisdiction by the High Court in view of clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the issue needs to be resolved by the authoritative decision of the Larger Bench?

Subject

1. Constitution - Writ - Criminal Law - Habeas Corpus

Statutes

Act Name - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015,

Section - 27

Questions Referred

(1) Whether a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable against the judicial order passed by the Magistrate or by the Child Welfare Committee appointed under Section 27 of the Act, sending the victim to Women Protection Home/Nari Niketan/Juvenile Home/Child Care Home?

(2) Whether detention of a corpus in Women Protection Home/Nari Niketan/Juvenile Home/Child Care Home pursuant to an order (may be improper) can be termed/viewed as an illegal detention?

(3) Under the Scheme of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the welfare and safety of child in need of care and protection is the legal responsibility of the Board/Child Welfare Committee and as such, the proposition that even a minor cannot be sent to Women Protection Home/Nari Niketan/Juvenile Home/Child Care Home against his/her wishes, is legally valid or it requires a modified approach in consonance with the object of the Act?

Subject

1. Criminal Law - SC/ST - CrPC

Statutes

Act Name - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1989,

Section - 14A

Questions Referred

(i) Whether a Single Judge of this Court while deciding Criminal Appeal (Defective) No. 523/2017 In re : Rohit v. State of U.P. and another vide judgment dated 29.8.2017 correctly permitted the conversion of appeal under Section 14 A of the Act, 1989 into a bail application by exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.?

ii) Whether keeping in view the judgment of Rohit (supra), an aggrieved person will have two remedies available of preferring an appeal under the provisions of Section 14 A of the Act, 1989 as well as a bail application under the provisions of Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.?

(iii) Whether an aggrieved person who has not availed of the remedy of an appeal under the provisions of Section 14 A of Act, 1989 can be allowed to approach the High Court by preferring an application under the provisions of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.?

(iv) What would be the remedy available to an aggrieved person who has failed to avail the remedy of appeal under the provision of Act, 1989 and the time period for availing the said remedy has also lapsed?