Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art. 14

Act Name - National Security Act, 1980, 1980

Section - S.3

Questions Referred

Whether the order of preventive detention can at all be challenged on the ground of parity, the origin of which has been traced in Art. 14 of the Constitution and if it can be claimed, what should be its extent and basis?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, 1872

Section - S.76

Act Name - Advocates Act, 1961, 1961

Section - S.34(1), S.16(2), S.28

Act Name - Designation of Senior Advocates Rules ,1999,

Section - R.1, R.2 (a), R.3(B)

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art. 14, 19, 226

Questions Referred

1. Whether the High Court can delegate its statutory function under Sec. 16(2) of the Act, to designate an advocate as senior advocate in favour of a committee consisting of Hon'ble Judges of the Court?

2. Whether Rule 3(B) of the Rules, or in the form it stands in the Rules, is in contravention of the provisions contained in Sec. 16(2) of the Act and is ultra vires?

3. Whether the High Court has authority to frame the Rules known as 'Designation of Senior Advocate Rules, 1999'; under Sec. 34(1) of the Act or under any other provision of the Act or the Constitution, for the purposes of evolving the procedure to be allowed for designation of an Advocate as Senior Advocate?

4. Whether the procedure evolved under the impugned Rules excludes the advocates, practising in the district courts, or in the tribunals, from consideration to be designated as senior advocates?

5. To what relief, if any, in the facts and circumstances of the case petitioners are entitled in the present writ petition?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art.226

Act Name - G.O. dated 17.10.1998,

Section - NA

Questions Referred

(1) Whether the Government could issue the Government Order dated 17.10.1998 treating the Instructors as Lecturers, though they had never applied for the said post nor they had been appointed as Lecturer when the process of selection and eligibility etc. is entirely different on the post of Lecturers and teacher includes only Professor, Reader and Lecturer?

(2) Whether, without bracketing both the posts, i.e. Instructors and Lecturers, the Government could issue the Government Order dated 17.10.1998 treating the Instructors as Lecturers?

(3) Whether in the absence of any provision in the said Government Order to give effect to the said order with retrospective effect, the Division Bench could grant the relief that they shall be deemed to have been appointed as Lecturers from the date of initial appointment as Instructors?

(4) Whether the judgment given by the Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 32098 of 1999, Dr. Swatantra Bala Sharma v. State of U.P. and others, reported in 1999 (3) ESC 2404, was the correct judgment in law?

List of Cited Cases

• Dr. Swatantra Bala Sharma v. State of U.P. (1999 (3) ESC 2404)

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, , 1951

Section - S.3(4)

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901, 1901

Section - S.14A(3), S.14

Questions Referred

(1) When under Section 198(4) of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, the power of Collector can be exercised by Additional Collector?

(2) Which of the Division Bench i.e., 1996 RD 190-Shiv Avtar v. Nabi and others or 1986 ALJ 1248-Brij Kishore and another v. Atrikta Ziladhikari, Kanpur and others laid down the correct law?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Sch.VII List II Entry 56

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Motor Gadi (Yatri-Kar) Adhiniyam, 1962, 1962

Section - S.3

Questions Referred

Whether having regard to Entry 56 of State List of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution a contract carriage operator is exigible to passenger tax under U. P. Motor Gadi (Yatri Kar) Adhiniyam, 1962 ?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art.226

Questions Referred

1.Whether a Division Bench can hold that an earlier Full Bench decision is not binding precedent in view of subsequent decision or decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court?

2.Whether a writ in the nature of certiorari will lie against a co-operative society or it comes within the meaning of the words 'Other Authority' occurring in Article 226 of the Constitution of India?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948, 1948

Section - S. 21(4). 21 (5), 30

Questions Referred

1. Whether the limitation provided under Section 21(4) will apply or limitation provided under Section 21(5) will apply for passing assessment order by the Assessing Authority?

2. In case Section 21(5) applies then whether the limitation runs from the date of service of the order or from the date of the order?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, , 1974

Section - S.41, S.2(c), S.157(1), S.437, S.439

Questions Referred

(1) Whether the arrest of an accused is a must if cognizable offence is disclosed in the F.I.R. or in a criminal complaint?

(2) Whether the High Court can direct the subordinate Courts to de­cide the Bail Application on the same day it is filed ?

(3) Whether the case Dr. Vinod Narain v. State of U.P., Writ Petition No. 3643 of 1992 reported in 1995 (32) ACC 375, has been correctly decided by the five Judges Full Bench of this Court?

List of Cited Cases

• Dr. Vinod Narain v. State of U.P.(1995 (32) ACC 375)

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Institutes of Technology Act, 1961, 1961

Section - S.13(2)

Questions Referred

Whether the retirement age of an employee of the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur is 60 years or 62 years?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art.16, 226, 309

Act Name - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, 1908

Section - O.2 R.2

Act Name - U.P. Promotion by Selection in Consultation with Public Service Commission (Procedure) Rules ,1970,

Section - R.5, R.7, R.13

Act Name - U.P. Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations,1954,

Section - Regn.3

Questions Referred

Whether the service rendered by an employee on ad hoc basis can be counted for the purposes of determining the seniority, promotion etc?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952,

Section - Chapter V, Rule 6

Questions Referred

(1) Whether licence granted to ICICI Bank under the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 or guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India permit the ICICI Bank to recover its dues from the borrowers through collection agents who are bullies who recover the loan by taking law in their own hands?

(2) Whether the contract entered into between the ICICI Bank and Shiv Shakti Consultancy is a legal contract and, if so, its effect? Whether the contract entered into between the ICICI Bank and Shiv Shakti Consultancy absolves the ICICI Bank from all criminal and civil liabilities?

(3) Whether Shiv Shakti Consultancy is an agent of ICICI Bank and whether the bank is liable for all actions of its collection agent or agencies who violate criminal and civil laws?

(4) Whether ICICI Bank is under a legal obligation to follow due process of law for carrying out its banking business of advancement of loans and recovery of its dues? Whether it can disturb the rule of law by engaging collection agent that recovers the dues from the borrowers by using muscle power?

(5) Whether the ICICI Bank can recover its dues only in accordance with law by filing a civil suit?

(6) Whether the ICICI bank or its collection agency can take coercive action against the borrower by snatching the vehicles or taking possession of the property without following the procedure established by law and take further coercive action by locking the individual borrower in the bank or at some other place?

(7) Whether any recovery charges are paid by the bank to its collection agents and whether it is recoverable by the bank from the borrower or not and, what is the percentage of recovery charges paid by the ICICI Bank to the collection agent?

(8) Whether ICICI Bank can ignore the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in case of bounced cheques and proceed to recover the amount of the bounced cheques through their collection agent by force?

(9) Whether the Nationalised Banks which recovers its dues from the borrowers in accordance with law could be permitted to adopt the same procedure for recovery of its dues from the borrowers as adopted by the private banks like ICICI Bank through collection agents who take law in their own hands?

(10) Whether for recovery of any amount from a borrower two different parallel systems could exist, one in accordance with law followed by the Nationalised Banks and the other followed by the private banks who recover their dues through collection agents in violation of law?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art.309

Act Name - U.P. (Reservation of Vacancies for Ex-servicemen in Class III and Class IV Services and Posts) Rules, 1977,

Section - R.2(c)

Act Name - U.P. State Govt. Order dt. 20-8-1987,

Section - NA

Questions Referred

Whether a candidate, seeking direct appointment on the dint of being 'Ex-serviceman' to a post in Group 'A' and/or Group 'B' Service of the State Government, is required to fulfil the condition of 'at least five-years' military service' as a pre-requisite to consideration of his candidature as against the posts reserved for 'ex-servicemen'?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art.226

Act Name - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, , 1974

Section - S.309, S.209

Questions Referred

Where an accused person is under judicial custody on the basis of a valid remand order passed under Sections 209 or 309, Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate pending committal proceedings or trial, should he be set at liberty by issuing a writ of Habeas Corpus on the ground that his initial detention was violative of Constitutional guarantee enshrined in Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, , 1982

Section - S.33B

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, , 1921

Section - S.16E

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Second Order, 1981,

Section - Para.2

Questions Referred

Whether a teacher appointed on ad hoc basis in a short term vacancy, like leave vacancy, is entitled as of right to continue in the said post even after the short term vacancy has been converted to a permanent vacancy due to death, resignation or retirement of the permanent incumbent?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, , 1974

Section - S.204, S.482

Questions Referred

Whether a Magistrate/Court before rejecting a "Final-Report" filed by an Investigating Officer, has to hear the accused on his appearing voluntarily or after notice irrespective of the fact whether or not the informant is proposed to be heard with or without a protest petition challenging the said Final Report??

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art.226

Questions Referred

(1) In case a cognizable report was lodged by an informant and during investigation accused come up with some or other reliefs through writ petition to the High Court, the informant should be made a party and heard before any final orders are passed in the aforesaid writ petition?

(2) Whether or not before passing the final order notice should be issued and reply should be called from the State, which is the controlling investigating agency for all investigations in the State of U.P. or any other agency in the State of U.P., though may be controlled by the Union of India for the time being, which may be investigating such an offence?

(3) Which of the two Division Bench decisions referred to above lays down the correct law?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art.22, 226

Act Name - National Security Act, 1980, 1980

Section - S.13

Questions Referred

1. Whether a person detained under a preventive law is entitled, as of right, to be set at liberty only on the ground that the unexpired period of his detention is less than a month?

2. If the answer to question No. 1 is in affirmative, can the detenue claim such a right in a second or successive petitions even though his earlier petition has already been dismissed on merits thereby upholding his continued detention for the period fixed by the appropriate Government?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - National Security Act, 1980, 1980

Section - S.14

Questions Referred

1. Whether under the provisions of National Security Act, 1980, it is obligatory on the detaining authority to inform the detenu that he has a right to make a representation before the Central Government under Section 14 of the Act and if such information is not given to the detenu while serving the grounds, it shall vitiate the order of detention being in violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India?

2. Whether in a case where the detenu has not been informed about his right to make a representation before the Central Government but he has himsel f otherwise made a representation or his representation made to the State Government has been forwarded to the Central Government and it has been considered and rejected by the Central Government and no prejudice has been caused to him, even then the order of detention shall vitiate being in violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India?

3. Where the detenu has not made any representation to the Central Government but his representation made to the State Government is forwarded to the Central Government and delay is caused by Central Government in deciding such representation, the order of detention be rendered illegal?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art. 226

Questions Referred

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable by ?Angan Bari? Karyakarti who is appointed on temporary basis by the Child Development and Social Welfare Department of the State and is paid only honorarium?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art.246

Act Name - Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, 1993

Section - S.17, S.18

Act Name - Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961, 1961

Section - S.3

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act., 1972, 1972

Section - S.3(1)(b), S.2(g)

Questions Referred

1.What is the scope of S. 3(1)(b) of U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972?

2. Whether any money advanced by a banking company, which is not under a State Sponsored scheme, can also be recovered by taking recourse to the provisions of the Act by the Collector as arrears of land revenue if a certificate has been sent to him by local agent of the bank mentioning the amount and requesting him to recover the same as if it was an arrears of land revenue?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, , 1974

Section - S.2(d), S.156(3), S.190

Questions Referred

1.Should the Magistrate while exercising powers under S. 156(3), Cr. P.C. be left to write cryptic orders "register and investigate," or "register and do the needful" or "he has to investigate," or the like? or the Magistrate's order should prima facie indicate application of mind?

2.Is the observation of the Division Bench in Suraj Mal (1993 (30) All Cri C 81) (supra) correct when it says that when an applicant before a Magistrate prays only for registration and investigation of a case, such an application will not become "complaint" as defined in S. 2 of the Cr. P.C.?

List of Cited Cases

• Suraj Mal v. State of U.P., (1993) 30 All Cri C 81

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art. 311

Questions Referred

(a) Whether if an inquiry proceeding is not concluded within a time frame fixed by a court and concluded thereafter, without seeking extension from the Court then on the said ground the entire inquiry proceeding as well as punishment order passed, is vitiated in view of the judgment in the case of P. N. Srivastava?

(b) Whether the law as laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of P. N. Srivastava that if an inquiry proceeding is not concluded within a time frame as fixed by a Court, it stands vitiated is still a good law in view of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Chandra as well as a judgment dated 27.07.2009 of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1056 (SB) of 2009 (Union of India and others v. Satendra Kumar Sahai and another)?

List of Cited Cases

• P. N. Srivastava v. State of U. P., 1999 ALL. L. J. 448
• Suresh Chandra v. State of M.P. & Anr., (2005)12 SCC 355

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art. 16

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, , 1982

Section - Ss. 12, 2(l)

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998,

Section - Rr. 14(2), 10

Questions Referred

Which date will be relevant for the purpose of determination of criteria of availability and eligibility for promotion to the post of Lecturer grade i.e. the date on which vacancy occurs to forward to the Selection Committee/Commission or the first day of year of the recruitment when the vacancy is notified for recruitment?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art. 226

Act Name - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, 1908

Section - O.3 R.2

Questions Referred

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution can be filed by a power of attorney holder?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art.348

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Adhoc Appointment (On Post within the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979,

Section - R.4

Questions Referred

(I) Whether the cut off date i.e. 30.6.1998 fixed under the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Ad hoc Appointments (on posts outside the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 to adjudge the eligibility for regularization, can be ignored without strucking off from the Rules?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, 1947

Section - S. 95 (1)(g) Proviso

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997,

Section - R. 2 (c), 3, 4, 5 and 6

Questions Referred

(i) Whether the pradhan is required to be associated in the preliminary enquiry under the proviso to Section 95(1)(g) of the UP Panchayat Raj Act?

(ii) In case, the preliminary enquiry is adverse to the pradhan then, whether an opportunity is necessary before passing an order ceasing financial and administrative powers of the pradhan?

(iii) If the District Magistrate has sufficient material to undertake a formal enquiry then, is he still required to hold a preliminary enquiry?

(iv) Whether the following observations in Chunmun v. District Magistrate, Sonbhadra, 1998 (3) AWC 1892 (paragraph 8 ) (the Chunmun case) are correct?

List of Cited Cases

• Chunmun v. District Magistrate, Sonbhadra, 1998 (3) AWC 1892

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, , 1916

Section - S. 48 (2)Proviso

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, 1947

Section - S 95(1)(g)

Questions Referred

(i)Whether the State Government in proceedings initiated for removal under Section 48(2) of the UP Municipalities Act, 1916 is required to give any opportunity at the stage of invoking the powers in the first proviso before restraining the president from exercising his financial and administrative powers and as to whether any such preliminary inquiry is permissible to be read the aforesaid proviso?

(ii) Whether the State Government has to record a subjective satisfaction separately for invoking the said powers even if the material for the issuance of the show-cause notice and the invoking of such powers is the same?

(iii) Whether the views expressed by this Court in the decisions of Imran Masood v. State of U.P. and others, 2007(1) ADJ 350 (DB) and in the case of Rekha (Kinner) v. State of U.P. and others, 2008(3) ADJ 315 (DB), require reconsideration in the light of the observations as contained in Smt. Vimla v. State of U.P. and others, 2008(1) ADJ 128 (DB)(LB), for an authoritative pronouncement on issue number-1 and 2?

List of Cited Cases

• Imran Masood v. State of U.P. and others, 2007(1) ADJ 350 (DB)
• Rekha (Kinner) v. State of U.P. and others, 2008(3) ADJ 315 (DB)
• Smt. Vimla v. State of U.P. and others, 2008(1) ADJ 128 (DB)(LB)

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art. 226

Act Name - Land Acquisition Act, , 1894

Section - S. 18(1), 18(2) and 12

Act Name - Limitation Act, 1963, 1963

Section - S. 5

Questions Referred

(1) Whether the directions contained in Savitri Devi's case in the nature of a general mandamus are in direct conflict with the ratio of Kanchchid's case reported in 1999 (3) AWC 1978 (DB)?

(2) Whether the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India while interpreting Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act can confer the power on the Collector to refer a dispute under Section 18 even if it is barred by limitation?

List of Cited Cases

• Smt. Savitri Devi v. State of U.P., 1999 (3) AWC 1978 (DB)
• Kanchchid v. State of U.P. and others, 1999 (3) AWC 1978

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art. 226, 217 and 224

Questions Referred

(i) Whether the opinion of the Chief Justice of India in regard to the appointment of Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts as well in regard to the transfer of High Court Judges is entitled to primacy?

(ii) Whether the matters including matter for fixation of the Judge strength in the High Courts are justiciable?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art. 225

Act Name - Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952,

Section - Chap. 5, R. 1 and 6

Act Name - Government Order dated 31.5.2010,

Section - NA

Questions Referred

(1) Whether such a blanket Government Order, prohibiting use of machinery, which is against the spirit of Statutory Rules and the final and binding judgments rendered by the Division Benches of this Court at Allahabad, can be issued on the basis of an interim order passed by a Division Bench of Lucknow Bench of this Court at Lucknow, when there are already three binding, final and unchallenged judgments of the Division Benches and a judgment of learned single Judge of this Court of Principal Seat at Allahabad on the subject?

(2) Whether the interim order dated 27.5.2010, passed by the Lucknow Bench of this Court, not exercising P.I.L. Jurisdiction, and other interim orders on the basis of which Government Order dated 31.5.2010, imposing complete ban on use of machinery in mining operations on the riverbeds or nearby areas could be issued, when the Division Benches and the learned Single Judge of this Court at Allahabad have not ordered for total prohibition on the use of machines for excavation of sand?

(3) Whether such interim order, which was passed without taking into account a settled legal position and not laying down any law, would be per incuriam where the controversy raised has already been settled by various judicial pronouncements of this Court at Principal Seat of the High Court at Allahabad?' ?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999,

Section - Rule 4

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Police Officer of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991,

Section - Rules 6, 7

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930,

Section - Rules 49-A

Questions Referred

(a) Whether a reference made by a Division Bench, which has not noticed a Constitution Bench judgment of this Court comprising of larger number of Judges, squarely applicable on the subject, was liable to be returned unanswered by the Full Bench only on the ground that Constitution Bench judgment has not been considered by the Division Bench while making the reference?

(b) Whether the Full Bench in the case of Shahroj Anwar Khan (supra) is correct in recording in paragraph 21 that the word ''inquiry' as contemplated under Rule 17(1)(a) (Para materia to Rule 49-A of the C.C.A. Rules) will include a preliminary inquiry to be precise whether the word ''inquiry' in the said Rules includes within its ambit preliminary inquiry inasmuch as the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Jai Singh Dixit (supra) has specifically held that the word ''inquiry', under Rule 49-A of the C.C.A. Rules, necessarily refer to formal departmental inquiry referable to Rule 55 and 56-A of the C.C.A. Rules or Rules 6 and 7 of the U.P. Police Officer of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991?

(c) Whether, while directing preliminary inquiry, the power to suspend has to be exercised on objective consideration of material on record of each case and therefore it is for the State Government on a challenge being made to an order of suspension in contemplation of an inquiry to justify by such material on record that irrespective of preliminary inquiry the authority was satisfied that suspension was warranted in the facts of the case?

(d) Whether an order of suspension, in contemplation of a vigilance inquiry, would be within four corners of Rule 49-?

List of Cited Cases

• State of U.P. v. Jai Singh Dixit, 1975 AWC 243.

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Police Act, 1861, 1861

Section - S. 2 , 46 (3)

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh (Civil Police) Constable and Head Constable Service Rules , 2008,

Section - R. 26

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Police Service Regulations,

Section - Regn. 520

Questions Referred

(i)Whether pursuant to framing of the U.P. (Civil Police) Constable and Head Constables Service Rules, 2008, the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Singh v. Union of India, 2006 (8) SCC 1, in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, are no longer applicable in view of what is set out in paragraph 31 of the judgment?

List of Cited Cases

• Prakash Singh v. Union of India, 2006 (8) SCC 1

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art. 16, 225

Act Name - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, 1872

Section - S. 114 (f)

Act Name - Indian Contract Act, 1872, 1872

Section - S. 4

Act Name - Post Office Act, 1898, 1898

Section - Ss. 4, 6

Act Name - Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952,

Section - Chap. 5, R. 6

Questions Referred

When applications are invited, one through post office and the other by any other means or only through post, does the post office become the agent of the addressee, because there is express or implied authorisation by the addressee to send the articles by post?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, 1993

Section - S. 14, 17

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Sch. 7 List 1 Entry 66

Act Name - National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2005,

Section - Appendix 2, Para 3.2

Questions Referred

(I) Whether after the enforcement of 1993 Act the candidates who obtained B.Ed. degree from an institution or a University during the period when the application of the Institution or University for grant of recognition was pending are eligible for Special B.T.C. Course-2007 as held by Division Bench judgement in Ekta Shukla?s case Or Whether the candidates who have obtained degree from an institution or University recognised by NCTE are only eligible for Special B.T.C. Course 2007 as held by Division Bench judgment in Sanjai Kumar and Sunita Upadhyay?s case?

(II) Whether recognition, as referred to in the proviso to Section 14(1) of the N.C.T.E. Act 1993 Act can be treated to be deemed recognition under the 1993 Act of an institution or a University for the period applications were pending ?

(III) Whether the exclusion of those candidates from field of eligibility for Special B.T.C. Course - 2007 who have obtained B.Ed. degree prior to enforcement of 1993 Act or after the enforcement of 1993 Act during the period when the application of the Institution or the University was pending consideration, is arbitrary and unreasonable violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, 1993

Section - S. 12, 32

Act Name - National Council for Teachers Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2009,

Section - Regns 8, 9

Questions Referred

(a) Whether the degree obtained by a student from an institution/university established by law, situate at a place out side the State of Uttar Pradesh but duly recognized by the N.C.T.E. can be refused acceptance as valid qualification for being admitted to Special B.T.C. Course-2008 by the State ?

(b) Whether the classification under the Government Order between the degree of B.Ed. obtained from other State being valid for admission to B.T.C. Course-2008, while the degree of C.P.Ed., B.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. similarly obtained from the institutions situate outside the State of Uttar Pradesh being invalid for considered for admission to B.T.C. Course-2008 is arbitrary and without any reasonable rational and therefore hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India ?

(c) Whether the Division Bench judgment in the case of Vijay Kumar Kushwaha and others v. State of U.P. and others, (2003) 3 UPLBEC 2211, lays down the correct law?

List of Cited Cases

• Vijay Kumar Kushwaha and others v. State of U.P. and others, (2003) 3 UPLBEC 2211

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art. 243(Q)

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1959, 1959

Section - S. 540, 172 to 199, 201 to 206, 219 to 221, 225, 227 and 306

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation (Assessment and Collection of Tax on Advertisement) Rules, 2009,

Section - R. 5, 9, 17, 19 and 26 to 28

Questions Referred

(1) Whether the State Government had legislative competence to frame the Rules, 2009?

(2) Whether the State Government in any case could have framed 'Rules' in general for all the municipal corporations, that too without taking recourse to Section 206 of the Act?

(3) Whether delegation of power could be made under the Rules framed by the State Government to the Central Government?

(4) Whether the licence for putting hoardings/advertisements on public properties, owned by private owners, can be given by public auction ?

(5) Whether the impugned Rules are ultra vires to the provisions of Articles 14, 19(1) (a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India?

(6) Whether the Rules, 2009 are invalid, they having been framed without following the provisions of Sections 199 to 203 of the Act?

(7) Whether the provisions of the Rules, 2009, such as- requiring the owner of the building, where the advertisement is to be set up, to give an undertaking that in the event of default by the advertising company/firm to pay the tax, the owner of the building concerned would pay the tax, etc. can be said to be unreasonable and unfair to be adhered to and are liable to be struck down?

(8) Whether vesting of all the powers (as discussed in this order in relation to putting of hoardings and as given under the Rules, 2009) on private properties, in special areas etc. and in 'no hoarding zones' into the sole authority of the Municipal Commissioner, that too with no guidelines and without providing any superior forum of appeal/revision against his decision, suffers from the vice of excessive delegation and in any case absolutely arbitrary and unreasonable?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, , 1974

Section - S. 397 (2), 145 (1) and 146 (1)

Questions Referred

Whether the orders passed by the Magistrate under Section 145(1) and 146(1) of the Code are interlocutory orders simplicitor and no revision petition under Section 397 or 403 of the Code or petition under Section 482 of the Code is maintainable against the same?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Essential Commodities Act, 1955, 1955

Section - S.3

Act Name - Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001,

Section - Cl.4, Cl.25, Cl.28

Questions Referred

1.Whether before suspension of fair price agreement an opportunity of hearing is mandatory to be given to the fair price shop agent in violation of which the suspension order is liable to be set aside?

2. Whether the Division Bench judgments in Pramod Kumar v. State of U. P. and others, 2006(10) ADJ 610 (DB) and Harpal v. State of U. P. and another, 2008(3) ADJ 36 (DB)lay down the correct law that opportunity is must; or Whether the Division Bench in Gopi's case lays down the correct law?

List of Cited Cases

• Gopi v. State of U. P. & Ors., AIR 2007 (NOC) 2423 (ALL.)
• Pramod Kumar v. State of U. P. & Ors., 2007 (1) All LJ 407
• Harpal v. State of U. P. & Anr., 2008 (4) ALJ 10

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art. 225

Act Name - Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952,

Section - Chap.5, R. 6

Questions Referred

1. Whether a writ will lie even in the matter of non-statutory contract?

2. Whether a writ will lie in cases relating to fair price shops e.g. grant, cancellation, suspension, etc. of fair price shops?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art.246(3), 254

Act Name - State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, 1951

Section - S.32G

Act Name - Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, 1993

Section - S.19, 2(g)

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act., 1972, 1972

Section - S.3

Questions Referred

(i) Which Act will prevail in case an Act enacted by the Parliament in pursuance of an entry in list-I of the seventh schedule of the Constitution is contrary to an Act enacted by the State in pursuance of an entry in list-II of the same schedule?

(ii) Whether the 1972 Act has been rendered void and inoperative, after the insertion of Section 32-G in the 151 Act insofar as it relates to recovery of debt payable to the Corporation?

(iii) Whether Section 3 of the 1972 Act is inconsistent with Section 32-G of the 1951 Act and if it is so, what is the effect?

(iv) Whether recovery against the guarantor can be made under the 1993 Act ?

(v) Whether the jurisdiction of the Collector to entertain an application of the Corporation for recovery under Section 3 of the 1972 Act of debt not being less than Rs. 10 lacs, is barred by Section 18 of the 1993 Act.?

(vi) Whether the Corporation having taken possession of the assets and properties of the borrower company under Section 29 of the 1951 Act was bound to exhaust its remedy under the said provision before initiating recovery proceeding against the sureties/guarantors?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Articles 254 (1), 254 (2), 234, 233 and Seventh Schedule, List III, Entry 23

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependants of Freedom Fighters and Ex-servicemen) Act, , 1993

Section - Sections 3 (1) (ii) and 2 (e)

Questions Referred

(1) Whether Section 3 (1) (ii) of Act, 1993 as amended by the U.P. Act No. XXIX of 1999 entitles the physically handicapped candidate to claim reservation for physically handicapped persons in the posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the absence of the requisite identification of the post in question, extending to it the benefits of such reservation?

(2) Whether the State Government has or it was permissible for it to have identified the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) by issuing a notification as contemplated in Section 3 (1) (ii) of 1993 Act as one of the post for which reservation was to be provided for persons suffering from disabilities (Physically handicapped persons) in view of the resolutions of the Administrative Committee dated 8.12.1979 and 31.1.1981 and the decision of the Court dated 20.1.1982, which had been accepted by the State Government?

(3) Whether the Full Court vide its resolutions dated 17.7.1993 and 7.3.1998 can be deemed to have given its concurrence to the State Government for providing reservation for physically handicapped persons in the posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division)?

(4) Whether the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Rai v. Public Service Commission, U.P. Allahabad and others, 2002 (2) ESC 143, does not lay down the correct law?

List of Cited Cases

• Vinod Kumar Rai v. Public Service Commission, U.P. Allahabad and others, 2002 (2) ESC 143

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, 1908

Section - O.41 R.9, O.41 R.11

Act Name - Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952,

Section - Chap.11, R.9

Questions Referred

1. Whether an order that the appeal will be heard amounts to admission to (sic) appeal under Order 41, Rule 9 of the C.P.C. and Chapter XI Rule 9 of the Rules of the Court?

2. Whether office could admit the appeal without there being any order of the Court purporting to be an order of the Court?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Land Acquisition Act, , 1894

Section - S. 23

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art. 16

Questions Referred

1. Whether Government Orders/Cir-culars providing employment to one member of a family whose land has been acquired, (over and above the compensation awarded under law) is valid or not?

2. Whether the acquiring bodies for whose benefit the land is acquired are bound by these Government ordres/circulars?

3. Whether a writ can be issued directing the acquiring body to consider the claim in accordance with the Government Orders/Circulars?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art.16, 226

Act Name - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, 1908

Section - O.2 R.2

Act Name - Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952,

Section - Chap.22 R.7

Act Name - Fundamental Rules,

Section - Chap.2, Part 2, Part 4, R.56(3)

Questions Referred

(i) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get salary for the period that he has worked under the interim orders of the Court even if the writ petition (in which the interim order is granted) is dismissed, as infructuous or after holding that he was not so entitled to work?

(ii) In case the writ petition in which interim order was granted is dismissed without any reference to the salary for the period that the petitioner had worked under the interim orders of the Court then, whether a second writ petition is maintainable for the salary of that period?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, , 1916

Section - S. 31(b), 88

Questions Referred

Whether an Administrator of a Municipal Board can impose a Municipal Tax as envisaged by Chapter V of the U.P. Municipalities Act 1916 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) when the Municipal Board has been dissolved or superseded under Section 30 of the Act?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art. 226

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980, 1980

Section - S.12, 13

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Service Commission (Procedure for Selection of Teachers) Regulation,1983,

Section - Regn.7(3)

Questions Referred

1. Whether law laid down in Dr. Prakash Chandra Srivastava Vs. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Anr. 2003 (1) All WC 142: (2003 All LJ 702) by this Court and followed in Alka Rani Gupta (Km.) Vs. Director of Education (Higher) and Anr, 2003 (2) ESC 944, is contrary to and in violation of the letter and intent of the express language used by the legislation in Section 13 of the Act, 1980 read with Regulation 5 of Regulation, 1983?

2. Whether it is permissible for the Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to either add or amend a statutory provision by enunciating an interpretation, which in its opinion, is just and proper?

3. Whether there is a direct conflict between the ratio of the two cases Dr. Prakash Chandra Srivastava (supra) and Km. Alka Rani Gupta (supra) on one hand, and that of in Dr. Ranjana Tiwari Vs. Director, Higher Education of U.P. and Ors, (2003) 3 E.S.C. (All) 1489: (2003 All LJ 2761) on the other, which deserves to be resolved by an authoritative pronouncement?"

List of Cited Cases

• Alka Rani Gupta (Km.) Vs. Director of Education (Higher) and Anr, 2003 (2) ESC 944
• Dr. Prakash Chandra Srivastava Vs. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Anr. 2003 (1) All WC 142
• Dr. Ranjana Tiwari Vs. Director, Higher Education of U.P. and Ors, (2003) 3 E.S.C. (All) 1489

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art.225

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, , 1951

Section - S.126

Act Name - Transfer of Property Act, 1882, 1882

Section - S.117

Act Name - Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952,

Section - Chap.5 R.6

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Rules, 1952,

Section - R.115A, 115B

Act Name - U.P. Gram Sabha Manual,

Section - Para.60(2)? (kha)

Questions Referred

(i)Whether judicial propriety demands that if a Bench of High Court is unable to agree with the decision already rendered by earlier Division Bench of Co-ordinate jurisdiction, the question of disagreement should be referred to a Larger Bench under Chapter V Rule 6 of the Rules of the Court, 1951?

(ii) Whether the decisions rendered in former two Division Benches in the case of Ajai Shanker (supra), which were brought to the notice of learned Judges constituting Division Bench in case of Panchoo (supra), the latter Division Bench instead of disagreement with ratio decidendi of two former Division Benches, it ought to have referred the same to a larger Bench of this Court?

(iii) Whether Article 14 and Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution postulate a reasonable classification to ameliorate the economic condition of weaker section of society of fishermen community enumerated under Paragraph 62 (2) (kha) of Gaon Sabha Manual and also for elimination of middlemen to save the said weaker section of society from exploitation as the Directive Principles embodied the ideal of socio economic justice as assured in the preamble of the Constitution and the Courts are to adopt the principle of harmonious interpretation of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution so as to give effect to the Fundamental rights as well as Directive Principles of State Policy?

(iv) Whether in view of the State List of Seventh Schedule Item No. 21 empowers State Legislature to enact on the subject of fisheries, placing U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, with Ninth Schedule of the Constitution and the mandatory provisions enshrined under Article 243-G read with Item No. 5 of Eleventh Schedule which includes settlement of fisheries of the ponds and tanks vested in Gaon Sabha with powers, authority and responsibility of Panchayat, the preparation of plans for economic development and social justice and the implementation of scheme for economic development and social justice as entrusted to them under Paragraph 60 (2) (Kha) of Gaon Sabha Manual issued by the State Government in exercise of its power under Section 126 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 and the Rules framed thereunder are sacrosanct being policy of affirmative action of the State Government giving Distributive justice to the weaker section of society and to protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation?

(v) Whether the decision rendered by learned Single Judge in case of Man Singh (supra), conferring jurisdiction upon Sub Divisional Officer and Collector both for cancellation of Patta of fishery right making the order of Collector revisable requires reconsideration in view of sub-sections (6) and (7) of Section 122-C of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 and decision rendered by Supreme Court in case of Dhulabhai (supra)?

(vi) Whether jurisdiction of Civil Court is expressly barred to cancel the fisheries rights granted under paragraph 60 (2) (Kha) of Gaon Sabha Manual and the decision rendered by Division Bench of this

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Police Act, 1861, 1861

Section - S. 2, 22, 23, 46 and 46(2)

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art. 14, 16, 16(1), 226, 309 and 313

Act Name - General Clauses Act, 1897, 1897

Section - S.5

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Recruitment to Services (Age Limit) Rules, 1972,

Section - R.1

Questions Referred

1. Whether a rule made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India can be set at naught by an executive fiat?

2. Whether the Fundamental Right of a citizen to equal opportunity in the matter of employment guaranteed under Article 16 (1) of the Constitution has been denied to the appellants by lowering the upper age limit?

3. Whether change in criterion and age made by executive order without any authority of law and/or reason can be upheld on the anvil of Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution of India or are mala fide?

4. Does the Division Bench decision in Subhash Chandra's case (supra) decides correct position of law?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art. 12 , 226, 21-A

Questions Referred

(i) Whether the D.P.S. School is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution?

(ii) Whether the Board is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India?

(iii) Whether the 'Affiliation bye-laws' have statutory force?

(iv) In case the answer to the second question is in negative then, whether the affiliation bye-laws are still binding on the schools affiliated to the Board?

(v)Whether the Committee of Management of the School, while dealing with the service matters of its employees or the teachers, is performing public duty?

(vi) Whether a writ petition is maintainable against a privately managed school for violation of the service rules.?

(vii) Whether a writ petition is maintainable against the Board for non-observance of its bye-laws?

(viii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any relief?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art.21, 226, 227, 141

Act Name - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, , 1974

Section - S.41, 50A, 482

Questions Referred

(1) Whether arrest during investigation can be stayed by this Court only in rarest of rare cases as observed in Satyapal v. State of U. P. and Ors., 2000 Cri LJ 569 : (1999 All LJ 2660), or according to the criteria laid down by the Supreme Court in Joginder Kumar v. State of U. P. and Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 260 : (AIR 1994 SC 1349)?

(2) Whether the Full Bench in Satyapal's case was right in holding that Joginder Kumar's case was delivered on its own peculiar facts and circumstances and hence does not lay down any legal principles relating to the power of arrest and the power of stay to arrest by this Court?

List of Cited Cases

• Satyapal v. State of U. P. and Ors., 2000 Cri LJ 569
• Joginder Kumar v. State of U. P. and Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 260

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, 1872

Section - Section 115

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973, 1973

Section - S. 2(2), 2(3), 5, 11, 4, 37(2), 7(2), 45, 50, 51, 52, 74

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904, 1904

Section - S. 8 and 20(2)

Questions Referred

Whether (a) erroneous issue of a 'No Objection Certificate' by the State Government, or (b) affiliation erroneously granted in violation of territorial limit fixed by Schedule to the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 can form, by estoppel or on any other principle of law a ground for issue of mandamus to the State Government or to the University which has granted erroneous affiliation or to the Chancellor to continue in future to violate the territorial limit fixed by Schedule in respect of that educational institution perpetually or even temporarily ?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, , 1974

Section - S.197

Act Name - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, 1988

Section - S.13, S.19

Act Name - Indian Penal Code, 1860, 1860

Section - S.120B

Questions Referred

1. Whether in the case of public servant which can be removed only by the Central Government and sanction under section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is also given, further sanction under section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code is also required because at the relevant time the said public servant was also employed in connection with the affairs of the State Government?

2. Whether public servant who is charged under section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act as also under section 120-B IPC and the sanction u/s 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is already given by the Central Government, yet the sanction by the State Government under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is necessary since he is being charged under section 120-B IPC also?

3. If the answer to the above two questions is in affirmative, then, whether the alleged act or omission for which the petitioner are being charged had reasonable connection to the discharge of their official duty calling for applicability of section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art 254, Sch 7 List II Entry 66, 5, 49

Act Name - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, 1957

Section - S.2

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, , 1961

Section - S. 142 , 239

Questions Referred

(1) Whether the view taken in paragraph 6 of the judgment of the Division Bench in Okhla Sand Supply Company v. State (supra) lays down the correct legal position?

(2) Whether Section 239 read with Sections 142, 143 and other provisions in the U. P. Kshetra Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 entitle the Zila Panchayat to frame the impugned bye-laws and levy the impugned fee/toll tax?

List of Cited Cases

• Okhla Sand Supply Company and another v. State of U. P. and others 2001 (1) AWC 803

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, 1993

Section - S. 14 , 32(2)(f)

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973, 1973

Section - S. 28

Questions Referred

1. Whether the admissions to private unaided (minority and non-minority) colleges imparting education for Bachelor of Education Courses recognized by NCTE and affiliated to the University can be made by any method other than by holding a common entrance test either by the State/Universities or by all the colleges of the State coming together as provided in P.A. Inamdar's case?

2. Whether the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge on 14.12.2006 in Writ Petition No.5674 (M/S) of 2006: U.P. Management Association of Self Finance Teachers Training Colleges Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. has correctly appreciated the TMA Pai, Islamic Academy and P.A. Inamdar's case and has laid down correct law?

3. Whether in the absence of any common entrance test held by all the colleges coming together or a common entrance test conducted by the State Government or all the Universities in the State the admissions can be made through the entrance examination held by individual universities providing list of students through counselling to these colleges?

4. Whether the entire process of admissions to these colleges must be left to the supervision of the Justice H.N. Tilhari ( Retd.) Committee constituted by the State Government in terms of the decisions issued in P.A. Inamdar's case?

List of Cited Cases

• P. A. Inamdar and Ors v. State of Maharashtra and Ors , AIR 2005 SC 3226

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art. 225, 226 and 227

Act Name - Essential Commodities Act, 1955, 1955

Section - S. 3

Act Name - Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952,

Section - Chap 8, R 5

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004,

Section - C1 28

Questions Referred

Whether a special appeal under the provisions of Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the Rules of the Court lies in a case where the judgment has been given by a learned single Judge in a writ petition directed against an order passed in an appeal under paragraph 28 of the U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art. 311

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Police Officer of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991,

Section - R. 17 (1)(a)

Questions Referred

1. Whether Rule 17 (1) (a) of the U. P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 prohibits passing of a suspension order during the pendency of preliminary enquiry?

2. Whether the Division Bench judgment rendered in Kripa Shanker Prasad and others v. State of U. P. and others, reported in (2004) 1 UPLBEC 124, lays down the correct law?

List of Cited Cases

• Kripa Shanker Prasad and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2004(1) ESC 33

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art. 225, 226

Act Name - Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952,

Section - Chap 5, R. 6, 13

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Higher Eduction Service Commission Act, 1980, 1982, 1982

Section -  S. 11, 31

Questions Referred

Whether in view of the provisions of the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission (Procedure for Selection of Teachers) Regulations, 1983, particularly, Regulations 3 and 6 thereof, the Guide-lines framed by the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission in the year 2008 in regard to the selection pursuant to Advertisement No. 41 of 2007, wherein "teaching experience" has been provided as one of the factors for preliminary screening and short-listing the candidates to be called for interview for the post of teachers/ lecturers are valid ?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, , 1921

Section - S. 16-G, Chap. 3 Regns. 31, 100

Questions Referred

(i) Whether prior approval for awarding punishment of dismissal to a Class-IV employee is contemplated and required under Chapter-III, Regulation 31 of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 ?

(ii) Which of the Division Bench judgments, as noticed above, lays down the correct law ?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art. 16

Act Name - Government Circular dated 10-10-2005,

Section - Clause No. 4

Questions Referred

(i) What is the correct interpretation of Clause No. 4 of the Government Circular dated 10-10-2005, issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh?

(ii) Whether the decision rendered in the case of Smt. Kanti Singh v. State of U. P. and others (Special Appeal No. 46 of 2007, decided on 15-1-2007) interpreting the said Clause, is based on correct preposition of law?

List of Cited Cases

• Kanti Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors, 2007 (4) ALJ (DOC) 199 (ALL.) (DB)

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art.225, 226

Act Name - Land Acquisition Act, , 1894

Section - S.4

Questions Referred

(1) Whether a Co-ordinate Bench while hearing a Public Interest Litigation can issue directions without impleading the affected party which has the effect of taking away the impact of the final decision in favour of such party by a Bench of the same strength?

(2) Whether the directions dated 14-7-2006 and 31-7-2006 of the Division Bench in the Public Interest Litigation (Writ Petition No. 2547 of 2005) run counter to and impede the implementation of the final decision dated 25-5-1998 in Writ Petition No. 32950 of 1994 and the decision dated 24-8-2005 in Writ Petition No. 20379 of 2003 keeping in view the fact that the order dated 5-11-2002 had not been quashed?

(3) Whether the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can issue a mandamus to the State Authorities for acquiring land in suo motu exercise of its powers in a Public Interest Litigation?

(4) Whether in such a situation if there are 2 conflicting orders, judicial discipline demanded a reference to a larger Bench instead of treating the impact of final judgments of this Court to be obiter?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art. 226

Questions Referred

(a) What would be the wisdom of the writ Court under this jurisdiction?

(b) What relief could be granted by the writ Court?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art. 246

Act Name - Court-fees Act, 1870, 1870

Section - S. 5

Questions Referred

a. Whether the provisions of the Court-Fees Act as amended from time to time in the State of Uttar Pradesh are ultra vires of State Legislature?

b. Whether the State has to satisfy with mathematical precision that the fee collected is spent for the purpose it has been levied?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art. 16 , 309

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974,

Section - Rr. 2(a), 5

Questions Referred

1. Whether a daily wager and work charge employee, employed in connection with the affairs of Uttar Pradesh, who is not holding any post whether substantive or temporary is a Government Servant within the meaning of Rule 2 (a) of U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974?

2. Whether the judgment in Smt. Pushpa Lata Dixit v. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and others, 1991 (18) ALR 591; Smt. Maya Devi v. State of U.P. (Writ Petition No.24231 of 1998 decided on 2.3.1998); State of U.P. v. Maya Devi (Special Appeal No.409 of 1998); Santosh Kumar Misra v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2001 (4) ESC (Alld) 1615; and Anju Misra v. General Manager, Kanpur Jal Sansthan (2004) 1 UPLBEC 201, giving benefit of compassionate appointment to the dependants of daily wager and work charge employees, have been correctly decided?'

List of Cited Cases

• Smt. Pushpa Lata Dixit v. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and others, 1991 (18) ALR 591
• State of U.P. v. Maya Devi (Special Appeal No. 409 of 1998)
• Santosh Kumar Misra v. State of U.P. and others, 2001 (4) ESC (All) 1615
• Anju Misra v. General Manager, Kanpur Jal Sansthan, (2004) 1 UPLBEC 201

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art. 226

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973, 1973

Section - S. 33

Questions Referred

(1) As to whether the judgment in the case of Shardendu Bhushan (AIR 1988 SC 335) (supra) lays down any proposition of law, qua the length of service rendered in a different State to be added for the purpose of computation of pension in respect of Teacher who was subsequently appointed in a degree college affiliated to the University covered by the Act, 1973 and has retired as such?

(2) Whether in absence of any statutory provision/Government Order permitting any such addition of length of service rendered in a different State to be computed for the purpose of pension qua the person who has retired as teacher from an affiliated Degree College of a State University a direction can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for such addition of length of service rendered outside the State for pension?

List of Cited Cases

• Sharadendu Bhushan v. Nagpur University, Nagpur and others, AIR 1988 SUPREME COURT 335

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes), 1994, 1994

Section - S. 3

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, , 1921

Section - S 16-G

Act Name - Regulations under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921,

Section - Chap 3 Regn 2

Questions Referred

1. Whether the roster in respect of reservation can be applied with regard to the promotion in respect of class III posts in Intermediate College, where the number of posts is less than five?

2. Whether there is a conflict between the ratio of the two Division Bench judgments of Mahendra Kumar Gond (supra) and Dr.Vishwajeet Singh (supra) as referred to herein above, and if so, then which of the decisions lay down the law correctly ?

List of Cited Cases

• Mahendra Kumar Gond v. District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh & Ors, 2009 (6) ALJ 57
• Vishwajeet Singh & Ors. etc. v. State of U.P. & Ors. etc, 2009 (4) All LJ 326

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, , 1921

Section - S. 16 -G

Act Name - Regulations under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921,

Section - Chap 3, Regn. 21

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, , 1982

Section - S. 18

Questions Referred

Whether a teacher of Intermediate College who has already been appointed as officiating principal of the Institution by virtue of his seniority on attaining the age of superannuation in the extended period of his service shall continue as officiating principal or simply as a teacher?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art. 226

Act Name - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, , 1974

Section - S.397(2), S.156(3), S.482

Questions Referred

A. Whether the order of the Magistrate made in exercise of powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C directing the police to register and investigate is open to revision at the instance of a person against whom neither cognizance has been taken nor any process issued?

B. Whether an order made under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C is an interlocutory order and remedy of revision against such order is barred under sub-section (2) of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?

C. Whether the view expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ajay Malviya v. State of U.P and others reported in 2000 (41) ACC 435 : (2000 All LJ 2730) that as an order made under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is amenable to revision, no writ petition for quashing an F.I.R registered on the basis of the order will be maintainable, is correct?

List of Cited Cases

• Ajay Malviya v. State of U.P and others, 2000(41) ACC 435

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Arbitration Act , 1940, 1940

Section - (Since repealed) S. 39 (1)(iv), 20 (as amended in State of U.P. by U.P. Civil Laws Reforms and Amendment Act, 1976)

Questions Referred

Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Appeal is maintainable?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, , 1921

Section - S. 16 G

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Educational Teaching (Subordinate Gazetted) Service Rules, 1993,

Section - R.17

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules,

Section - R.56(a)

Act Name - Government Order dated 21.3.1984,

Section - NA

Questions Referred

1. Whether the Government Order dated 21.3.1984, providing for extension of service after superannuation to the Teachers, Headmasters and Principals of Government Schools and Colleges upto end of the academic session i.e. 30th June, following the date on which they attain the age of superannuation, with certain conditions, is applicable to the staff of the training institutes such as Central Paedological Institute, Allahabad (CPI)?

2. Whether the Division Bench judgment in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20756 of 1990 (Rajpati Pandey v. State of UP and others) decided on 2.5.1997 (Reported in : 1997 (30) All LR 554) giving extension of service after 30th June next following the date of superannuation to the Professors of the Central Paedological Institute, Allahabad was correctly decided?

3. Whether the view taken by Division Bench in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 896 of 1967 (Sarju Prasad v. State of UP and others) decided on 14.3.1997 lays down the correct law?

List of Cited Cases

• Rajpati Pandey v. State of UP and others ,1997 (30) All LR 554)

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art. 16

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board Dying in Harness Rules, 1975,

Section - R. 2

Questions Referred

Whether the definition of 'family' under the Rules would include a daughter-in-law?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art. 16

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

Section - S. 23

Questions Referred

(a) Whether the power of the parent department to revoke the deputation even before the expiry of the term for good and valid reason is lost, only due to the fact that the deputationist was getting some additional monetary benefits while working on deputation?

(b) Whether the decision of the employer in revoking the deputation even before expiry of the term on good and valid reasons would be bad merely because the employee during deputation was getting better salary/allowances?

(c) Whether the single Judge was justified in declaring the judgment of the Single Judge and of the Division Bench dated 17.02.2011 and dated 27.05.2011 respectively as per incuriam or he was obliged to refer the matter to a larger bench if he had doubts about the said judgments?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art.225, Art.226

Act Name - Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952,

Section - Chap.8 R.5, Chap.5 R.10

Act Name - Letters Patent (Allahabad),

Section - Cl.27

Questions Referred

(1) Whether against the order/judgment of one judge passed in vacation exercising jurisdiction in cases which are cognizable by a Division Bench an special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court is maintainable?

(2) Whether the Division Bench judgment in Allahabad Galla Tilhan Vyapari Sangh, 25, Muthiganj and others, 1985 UPLBEC 1064 (supra) or Division Bench judgment in State of U.P. and others v. Smt. Meera Sankhwar and others, 2004 (4) AWC 3162, lays down the correct law?

List of Cited Cases

• Allahabad Galla Tilhan Vyapari Sangh v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Allahabad, 1986 ALL. L. J. 816
• State of Uttar Pradesh v. Smt. Meera Sankhwar, 2004 ALL. L. J. 3213.

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, , 1972

Section - S. 19

Questions Referred

Whether the judgment of the Division Bench in Rishi Kant Sharma's case lays down the correct position in law?

List of Cited Cases

• Rishi Kant Sharma v. State of U.P & Ors, 2011 (6) ALJ (NOC) 535)

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Essential Commodities Act, 1955, 1955

Section - S.3

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order,2004,

Section - Cl.2(o), Cl.30, Cl.31

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904, 1904

Section - S.24

Questions Referred

(i) Whether the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Ram Murat (supra), defining the word 'Family' as given in Government Order dated 3.7.1990 (Para 4.7) lays down the correct law specially after the enforcement of order 2004 ?

(ii) Whether the definition of family as given in Clause 2(o) of U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004, shall override the definition of family given in para 4.7 of Government order dated 3.7.1990 ?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, 1973

Section - S. 49

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh State Universities First Statutes (Age of Superannuation, Scales of Pay and Qualifications of Teachers), 1975,

Section - Statute 10B

Questions Referred

1.Whether there is a conflict between the ratio of the decisions in the cases of Daljeet Singh v. State of U.P., 2007(7) ADJ 117 (DB) and Om Saran Tripathi v. State of U.P., 2009(8) ADJ 322 (DB) and if so, which of the views lays down the law correctly?

2. Whether an officiating Principal appointed under Statute 10.20 of Purvanchal University, is entitled to payment of salary in the regular grade of the Principal or not.?

List of Cited Cases

• Daljeet Singh v. State of U.P., 2007(7) ADJ 117 (DB)
• Om Saran Tripathi v. State of U.P., 2009(8) ADJ 322 (DB).

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art.226

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, , 1966

Section - S.29

Questions Referred

Whether the High Court may issue a writ, order or direction in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for continuance of a Committee of Management of a co-operative society even though the term of the co-operative society has come to an end in accordance with the provisions of Section 29 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - U.P. Intermediate Education Act, , 1921

Section - S. 164

Questions Referred

Whether the judgment of the Division Bench in Vaibhav Jain v. State of U.P. (Special Appeal No. 1283 of 2008, decided on 4 January 2011) lays down the correct position in law when it holds that the term of the Committee of Management will start from the date of its election even if the elected body has started functioning much after the declaration of the results of the election?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art.16

Act Name - U.P. Intermediate Education Act, , 1921

Section - S.16G

Act Name - Government Order dated 10.12.2002,

Section - NA

Questions Referred

(a)Whether the Government Order dated 10.12.2002 which provides for computation of distance of the institution concerned for the purpose of payment of house rent allowance from the original Nagarpalika, in the facts of the case Mirzapur, is binding between the parties?

(b)Whether the Government Order dated 10.12.2002 is in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India?

(c) Whether the judgment of the Division Bench holding that it is irrelevant from which Municipal Board the distance of the institution is less than 8 kilometers, lays down the correct position in law or no?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, , 1961

Section - S.15

Questions Referred

Whether the District Magistrate or the competent authority under the U. P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Act, 1961 while proceeding to entertain a notice for tabling a no confidence motion under Section 15 thereof against the Block Pramukh, can exercise his discretion for examining the genuineness or veracity of the signatures endorsed by the members, and as to whether there is a direct conflict on principles in the judgments of this Court on the issue?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, , 1982

Section - S. 33 E

Act Name - U.P. Intermediate Education Act, , 1921

Section - S. 16 -E(11), Proviso

Questions Referred

(a) Whether even after the rescission of Removal of Difficulties Orders under Section 33-E of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 (Act) (U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982), with effect from 25 January 1999, the Committee of Management retains the power to make ad hoc appointment against short term vacancies only because it had published an advertisement for the purpose prior to 25 January 1999?

(b) Whether on enforcement of Section 33-E of the Act rescinding the Removal of Difficulties Orders issued earlier, the Committee of Management has lost all powers to make ad hoc appointment against short term vacancies?

(c) Whether under Section 16-E of the Intermediate Education Act 1921 (Act of 1921), there is a power with the Committee of Management to make ad hoc appointment against short term vacancies and if so then for what period?

(d) Whether the Division Bench in the case of Subhash Chandra Tripathi v. State of U.P., Writ-A No. 70721 of 2010, decided on 14 July, 2014, has laid down the correct law?

Subject

Statutes

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

Section - S. 81 (2)(b), 56

Act Name - The Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948, 1948

Section - S 10-B

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904, 1904

Section - S 6(e)

Questions Referred

1. Whether in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Hari Shanker v. Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury, AIR 1963 SC 698 and Shiv Shakti Cooperative Housing Society v. Swaraj Developers, (2003) 6 SCC 659, declaring the power of revision as not a substantive right but merely an enabling provision, the provision for a revision under Section 10B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 would on the repeal of that Act not be saved under Section 81 (2) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008?

2.Whether the view expressed by the Division Benches of this Court in Dharma Rice Mill v. State of U.P., 2010 UPTC 648 and Kumar Rice Mills v. State of U.P., 2010 UPTC 1594, taking a contrary view lay down the correct law, having been expressed upon non-consideration of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Hari Shanker v. Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury (supra) and Shiv Shakti Cooperative Housing Society v. Swaraj Developers (supra)?

List of Cited Cases

• Hari Shankar and others v. Rao Girdhari Lal, Chowdhury , AIR 1963 SUPREME COURT 698
• Shiv Shakti Co-op. Housing Society, Nagpur v. M/s. Swaraj Developers and others, AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 2434

Subject

Statutes

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

Section - S.48(2) Proviso

Questions Referred

(a) Whether the Full Bench judgment in the case of Hafiz Ataullah Ansari v. State of U.P. (supra) lays down the correct law?

(b) Whether in view of the language of the proviso to Section 48(2) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, there can be any proceedings for removal of the President without his financial and administrative powers ceasing, under the proviso?

(c) Whether cessation of financial and administrative powers of the President follows automatically with the issuance of a show-cause notice under Section 48 (2) calling upon him to show-cause as to why he may not be removed?

(d) Whether any separate order for cessation of financial and administrative powers of the President is required to be made while issuing a notice under the proviso to Section 48(2) or such cessation follows automatically?

(e) Whether in view of the specific language of Section 48(2), the question of opportunity of hearing before cessation of the financial and administrative powers of the President stands excluded?

List of Cited Cases

• Hafiz Ataullah Ansari v. State of U. P., 2011 (3) ADJ 502 (FB)

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art. 162, Art 226

Act Name - National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, 1993

Section - S. 12 A

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

Section - S. 23, 38

Act Name - U.P. Basic Education Act, , 1972

Section - S 11

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011,

Section - R 16-A

Questions Referred

(1) Whether the appointment of Shiksha Mitras in pursuance of the Government Order dated 26 May 1999 was of a statutory character?

(2) Whether the State Government did have the power, by virtue of Section 13(1) of the Basic Education Act 1972 and having due regard to the provisions of Entry 25 of the Concurrent List to the Seventh Schedule, 50 PART B to issue the Government Order dated 26 May 1999?

(3) Whether the Government Order dated 26 May 1999 can be regarded as a valid exercise of power under Article 162 of the Constitution, where the Service Rules of 1981 were silent in regard to the appointment of untrained teachers?

(4) Whether the Village Education Committees had a statutory character by virtue of Section 11 of the U P Basic Education Act, 1972?

(5) Whether the appointment of Shiksha Mitras can be regarded as being made against substantive posts, since the number was determined in the ratio of students to teachers in the proportion of 1:40 ?

(6) Whether the permission granted by NCTE on 14 January 2011 is a valid permission under Section 16(3)(d) of the NCTE Act?

(7) Whether the petitioners could be regarded as being persons aggrieved to challenge the permission granted by NCTE?

(8) Whether the effort on the part of the State to grant training to untrained teachers can be regarded as a reasonable effort and not malafide?

(9) Whether the appointment of Shiksha Mitras has been duly protected by the proviso to Section 12?A and could be validly brought into the regular cadre of Assistant Teachers by amendment of the Service Rules of 1981?

(10) Whether the power of NCTE to lay down minimum qualifications could only be exercised by framing Regulations under Section 32 of the NCTE Act?

(11) Would the effect of the insertion of Section 12-A suspend the effect and operation of the notification dated 23 August 2010?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art.16

Questions Referred

(A.) Whether a Degree in the field in question is entitled to be viewed as a higher qualification when compared to a Diploma in that field?

(B.) Whether the decisions in Alok Kumar Mishra and Kartikey lay down the correct position in law when they hold that a Degree holder is excluded from the zone of consideration for appointment as a Junior Engineer?

(C.)Whether a degree holder can be held to be ineligible to participate in a selection process for Junior Engineer in light of the relevant statutory rules?

(D)Whether the exclusion of degree holders from the zone of consideration would meet the tests as propounded by the Supreme Court in State of Uttarakhand Vs. Deep Chandra Tewari?

List of Cited Cases

• State of Uttrakhand v. Deep Chand Tiwari, AIROnline 2013 SC 170 : 2013 (15) SCC 557

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art.16

Questions Referred

(i)Whether government servant upon retirement on attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise is entitled to full pension/death-cum-retirement-gratuity on and during pendency of judicial proceedings ?

(ii)Whether the government servant/pensioner is entitled to full pension/death-cum-retirement gratuity before conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings/or judicial proceedings and final orders being passed thereon by the competent authority?

(iii)Whether the view expressed in Jai Prakash lays down the correct law or that expressed in Faini Singh the other decisions noted in the referring order?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Electricity Act, 2003, 2003

Section - S.42(5), S.42(6), S.42(7), S.2(15), S.176, S.181

Act Name - Electricity Rules, 2005,

Section - R.7

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2007,

Section - Regn.8.1

Questions Referred

(I)Whether Regulation 8.1(i) of the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum & Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2007 is ultra vires the provisions of the Act?

(II)Whether the judgment of the Division Bench in M/s. Jindal Poly Films Ltd. v. U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission, Lucknow decided on 15 April 2011 can be regarded as laying down the correct principle of law?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, , 1982

Section - S. 33

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Second Order, 1981,

Section - Para 3

Questions Referred

(a)Whether an ad-hoc appointee, appointed against a short term vacancy, would automatically cease to be in employment upon conversion of the vacancy into a substantive vacancy?

(b) Whether the ad-hoc appointee against a short term vacancy is entitled to continue to serve, even though the vacancy is converted into a substantive vacancy, until appointment of either an ad-hoc teacher in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 or till appointment of a regularly selected teacher recommended by the Commission/ Board, whichever is earlier?

(c) Whether the benefit of regularization as provided under Section 33-B of the UP Act No. 5 of 1982 is available only where the short term vacancy gets converted into a substantive vacancy after the commencement of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1993 i.e. 7.8.1993 and not before?

(d) Whether the Full Bench decision in the case of Smt. Pramila Mishra (supra) lays down correct law as it fails to consider the legislative intent reflected by the insertion of Section 33-B in UP Act No. 5 of 1982?

List of Cited Cases

• Smt. Pramila Mishra v. Deputy Director of Education, Jhansi Division, Jhansi and others, 1997 (2) UPLBEC 1329

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Government Order dated 6.12.1991/24.12.1991,

Section - Ban imposed on appointment of any person as daily wager or on work charge basis by the Nagar Palika Nagar Nigam Department.

Questions Referred

1.Whether the judgment of learned Single Judge passed in Rajendra Prasad Singh's case, which has been affirmed by the Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 1211 of 2009, is correct or not?

2.Whether in absence of any post in the establishment/department in question, the appointment can be sustained or not?

3. Whether in the absence of post directives can be issued for ensuring payment of salary?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, , 1961

Section - S.15, S.6, S.237, S.79, S.81, S.82, S.83, S.84, S.85

Questions Referred

Whether the elected members of the Kshetra Panchayat, who have not taken or subscribed to the oath of office as member before taking their seats in the house are entitled to sign the notice of intention to bring a 'no confidence motion' against the Pramukh and to participate and vote in the meeting held for the consideration of such a no confidence motion?

List of Cited Cases

• Shyam Narayan Ram v. State of U.P. and others , 2019 (2) ADJ 21
• Ram Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and others (2018) 6 SCC 692

Subject

1. Service- Departmental Proceeding

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art. 309

Act Name - Police Act, 1861, 1861

Section - S 46(2)(c)

Questions Referred

(a) Which of the law laid down in the case of Krishna Murari (supra) or law laid down in the case of State of U.P. and others v. Anil Kumar Bharti is the correct law?

(b) Whether in respect of departmental proceeding to be initiated against the inferior staff (Group-D staff) working in U.P. Police, the procedure as laid down under the Rules 1999 will apply or the provisions of the Rule, 1991 would be applicable?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Revenue Recovery Act, 1890, 1890

Section - S. 3, 5

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

Section - S 279

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Agricultural Credit Act , 1973, 1973

Section - S 11

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Rules, 1952,

Section - R 284

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Agricultural Credit Rules, 1975,

Section - R 12

Questions Referred

Whether decision in Mange Ram and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2010(4) ADJ 390 (DB) in so far as it takes the view that there is no provision under any of the Acts for levying any collection charges for mere issuance of citation or sale proclamation is correct or, the decision in Chinta Mani v. State of U.P. and others, 2010(6) ADJ 302 (DB) holding that provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 279 do not contain any provision for an absolute waiver of recovery charges where the citation has been issued under sub-section (1) and the charging Section empowers the Collector to raise such demand subject to the rules and provision of Revenue Recovery Act U.P. Act No. 37 of 2001, is correct?

List of Cited Cases

• Chinta Mani v. State of U.P. and others, 2010(6) ADJ 302 (DB)
• Mange Ram and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2010(4) ADJ 390 (DB)

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art. 309

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974,

Section - R.5

Questions Referred

(1) Whether the judgments in Subhash Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Vivek Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. on the interpretation of the provisions of Rule 5(iii) and the proviso thereto read with Rule 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, lay down the correct position of law?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Police Act, 1861, 1861

Section - S.2

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations,

Section - Regn.525

Questions Referred

(1) Whether a police constable working in the civil police who has rendered service for more than ten years cannot be transferred to another branch in view of the provisions of Regulation 525 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Jasveer Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2008(2) ADJ 484 (SC) : 2008(1) ESC 158 (SC)?

(2) Whether the government railway police and civil police constitute one cadre or different service cadres?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, 1946

Section - S.15, S.12A

Questions Referred

1.Whether amendments made in Model Standing Orders become automatically applicable to Certified Standing Orders without any amendment to the Standing Orders of the establishment finally certified under Section 10 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946?

2. Whether model orders framed by Central Government and amendments therein supersede the Model Standing Orders framed by State of U.P.'' Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art.225, Art.226

Act Name - Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952,

Section - Chap.5 R.1

Questions Referred

(a) Whether the Court concerned can assume jurisdiction not conferred upon the Court under the distribution of work by Hon'ble Chief Justice/Acting Chief Justice?

(b) Whether a Court hearing a petition can frame an issue and then answer the same, although the issue may not arise for consideration in the proceedings before the Court?

(c) Whether the High Court on judicial side can issue directions for regulating the entry, conduct and other related matters in respect of practice as a lawyer in the High Court, Subordinate Courts, Tribunal and other authorities?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art. 225

Act Name - Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952,

Section - Chap.8 R.5

Questions Referred

Where a learned Single Judge while hearing a writ petition calls for counter and rejoinder affidavits, but does not pass any order on the stay application either granting or refusing a stay, will the order amount to a refusal of interim relief to the petitioner either temporarily or impliedly and a 'judgment' within the meaning of Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court, 1952?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, , 1974

Section - 362

Questions Referred

At which stage dissent to be indicated (by the companion Judge on the Bench), at the time of conclusion of dictation or during the course of discussion?

Subject

1. Criminal Law - Procecution - Withdrawal - Judicial Review

Statutes

Act Name - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, , 1974

Section - S.321

Questions Referred

1. Whether the power of withdrawal can be exercised by State Government under Section 321 of Code of Criminal Procedure in a whimsical or arbitrary manner or it is required to be exercised for the considerations, just, valid and judicially tenable?

2. Whether decision taken by State Government for withdrawal of cases communicated to Public Prosecutor with direction to proceed ahead is open to judicial review or not in a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?

3. Whether State Government should not be required to make scrutiny of various criminal cases pending in Subordinate Courts to find out if they deserve withdrawal in exercise of powers under Section 321 Cr.P.C. irrespective of fact that accused or anyone else has approached the Government for this purpose or not?

Subject

1. Service Law - Education - Reservation - Creamy Layer - Certificate

Statutes

Act Name - U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes), 1994, 1994

Section - S.3, S.8

Questions Referred

(A)Whether the candidature of an OBC candidate is liable to be rejected on the ground of the caste certificate having been submitted after the last date for submission of applications?

(B)Whether the decision in Arvind Kumar Yadav lays down and represents the correct position in law ?

(C)Whether there exists any irreconcilable difference or repugnancy between the norms fixed by the Union and State Governments with regard to certification of creamy layer? If not, its effect?

List of Cited Cases

• Arvind Kumar Yadav v. U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board (2017 (120) All LR 843)

Subject

1. Service Law - Minority Institution - Assistant Teacher

Statutes

Act Name - U.P. Intermediate Education Act, , 1921

Section - S.16G

Act Name - Government Order Date 25.11.2005,

Section - NA

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art. 30

Act Name - Regulations under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921,

Section - Chapter II

Questions Referred

(1) Whether the law laid down in the case of N.B. Lal v. District Inspector of Schools (supra) that provisions of Chapter II Regulation 5 providing for filling up 50% post by promotion of Assistant Teacher violates the right of minority institution guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution?

(2) Whether the institution claiming itself to be a minority institution and acknowledged as such by the State Government is entitled to not to consider the claim of promotion of teachers of the primary section of Intermediate Colleges claiming promotion under the Government Order dated 25.11.2005 whereby 25% quota is reserved in their favour, on the ground that it offends Article 30 of the Constitution of India?

(3)Whether the provisions relating to promotion in respect of teachers of Intermediate College contained in Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, can be treated to be regulatory in nature, not violative of rights under Article 30 of the Constitution of India?

List of Cited Cases

• N. B. Lal v. District Inspector of Schools and Ors. Writ Petition No. 9776 of 1984, decided on 31 August, 1984

Subject

1. Administrative Law - Panchayat - Tribunal

Statutes

Act Name - U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, 1947

Section - (26 of 1947) , S.95(1)(g) Proviso

Questions Referred

(i) As to Whether the District Magistrate at the point of time when he proceeds to cease the administrative and financial authority of the Pradhan, he acts as a Tribunal or acts as an administrative authority?

(ii) The view as expressed in the case of Smt. Sonia (supra) that under the scheme of things provided for under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, the District Magistrate exercising delegated authority of State Government acts as Tribunal is a correct view or District Magistrate exercises administrative authority, while exercising authority under Section 95(1)(g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947?

List of Cited Cases

• Smt. Sonia v. State of U.P. (Spe.App.No. 65 of 2017 decided on 31.01.2017)

Subject

1. Criminal Law - Appeal by Victim - Limitation

Statutes

Act Name - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, , 1974

Section - S.372 Proviso, S.378(5), S.2(wa)

Questions Referred

Whether computation of period of limitation in filing the appeal at the instance of the victim would lie within 60 days as provided under section 378 (5) Cr.P.C. or ninety days following the decision of Division Bench of the Court in Criminal Misc. Application Defective U/s 372 Cr.P.C. ( Leave to Appeal) No. 83 of 2013 ?

Subject

1. Societies-Registration

Statutes

Act Name - Societies Registration Act, 1860, 1860

Section - S.25(2)

Act Name - U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, 1973

Section - S.57

Questions Referred

1.Whether there can be a mandamus commanding the Authorized Controller/ District Magistrate to hold election of office bearers of a registered society contrary to the provisions of Section 25 (2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860?

2.Whether there could be a direction to the Authorized Controller/District Magistrate to hold elections, more so when a second appeal is pending?

Subject

1. Service-Pension

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - :Art. 16, 309

Act Name - Civil Service Regulations, 1889,

Section - Art 370

Questions Referred

Whether the period of service rendered as a work charged or a daily wage employee is liable to be counted for the purposes of computing ''qualifying service'' as required by Regulation 370 for the grant of pension?

Subject

1. Co-operative Societies

Statutes

Act Name - U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, , 1966

Section - S.122

Act Name - U.P. Cane Co-operative Service Regulations (1975),

Section - Regn.21

Questions Referred

1.Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable against a Co-operative Cane Development Society, at the instance of its employee, for alleged breach of the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Cane Co-operative Service Regulations, 1975 which govern his service conditions?

2. Whether the law laid down in Ram Karan v. State of U.P. and others, Writ-A No. 27306 of 2014, or Srinarayan Gupta v. State of U.P., Special Appeal (D) No. 779 of 2014, decided on 12th September, 2014, is the correct law, in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench in Vijay Bihari Srivastava v. U.P. Postal Primary Co-operative Bank Ltd.?

3. Whether the U.P. Cane Co-operative Service Regulations, 1975 are statutory in nature having been issued under Section 122 of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 or are merely in the nature of administrative instructions?

List of Cited Cases

• Ram Karan v. State of U. P. and others (2014 (5) ALJ 336)
• Vijay Behari Srivastava, v. U. P. Postal Primary Co-operative Bank Ltd.(2003 ALL. L. J. 748)

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Indian Penal Code , 1860, 1860

Section - S. 302, 63

Questions Referred

Whether it is mandatory to impose fine in addition to the substantive sentence of imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, , 1982

Section - S.10, S.35

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art. 141

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998,

Section - R.14(3), R.(1), R.12, R.10, Proviso

Questions Referred

(a). Whether the Full Bench in the case of Raeesul Hasan (supra) has laid down the correct law?

(b). Whether there can be two different years of recruitment with reference to the posts, which are within the direct recruitment quota and for the posts within the promotion quota under Rules 10,11 and 14 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998?

(c.) Whether Rule 10 of the Rules 1998 read with the proviso attached to it necessarily entails the determination of the number of vacancies to be filled by way of promotion in that year of recruitment which would end on 30th of June of the succeeding year by adding all the existing and likely vacancies due for retirement so as to make the proviso workable which requires that the vacancies, which may not be filled by promotion be intimated to the Board for direct recruitment by 31 of July of that year?

(d.) Whether the view taken by the Full bench would result in giving a leverage to the management to decide as to what would be the year of recruitment under Rule 14 of Rules 1998 or determine the 1st day of the year for eligibility requirements for promotion at its whims and fancies and thereby defeat the right of eligible L.T. Grade teachers for promotion on their turn?

(e). Whether determination of the quota under which a particular vacancy in Lecturer's grade would fall has necessarily to be so done with reference to the date of occurrence of vacancy in the institution or the management has a right to club all the vacancies of the recruitment year and decide which is to be filled by direct recruitment and which by promotion?

List of Cited Cases

• Raeesul Hasan v. State of U.P. and others ( 2015 (6) ADJ 778) : (AIR 2015 All 139 (FB)

Subject

1. Women and Law- Domestic Violence

Statutes

Act Name - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, , 1974

Section - S.397, S.401

Act Name - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, 2005

Section - S.29

Questions Referred

(i) Whether a revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is maintainable before the High Court challenging an order passed by the Court of Sessions under Section 29 of the Act 2005?

(ii) Whether the decisions in the case of Nishant Krishna Yadav (Criminal Revision No. 4016 of 2015) and Manju Shree Robinson and others v. State of U P and others (Writ Petition No. 7926 (MS) of 2015) lay down the law correctly on the question of maintainability of a Revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the High Court against an order passed by the Court of Sessions under Section 29 of the Act 2005 in view of the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Thakur Das v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, (1978) 1 SCC 27; National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd., Chidambaram v. James Chadwaick and Bros., AIR 1953 SC 357; Maharashtra State Financial Corporation v. Jayee Drugs & Pharm, (1991) 2 SCC 637; and ITI Ltd. v. Siemens Public Communications Networks Ltd., (2002) 5 SCC 510 ?

List of Cited Cases

• Thakur Das v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, (1978) 1 SCC 27
• National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd., Chidambaram v. James Chadwaick and Bros., AIR 1953 SC 357
• Maharashtra State Financial Corporation v. Jayee Drugs & Pharm, (1991) 2 SCC 637
• ITI Ltd. v. Siemens Public Communications Networks Ltd., (2002) 5 SCC 510

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art.225

Act Name - United Provinces High Court (Amalgamation) Order, 1948,

Section - Cl.14

Questions Referred

1. The Amalgamation Order, 1948 is a special law hence whether territorial jurisdiction of the two Benches of the Allahabad High Court has to be decided in view of the provision of Clause 14 of the Amalgamation Order, as interpreted, in case of Nasiruddin, by the Apex Court or in view of the notification of State Government with regard to the place of sitting of Special Judge, CBI ?

2. Whether decisions of the two Division Bench of this Court in case of Sanjay Somani and Dr. Balram Dutt Sharma deciding the territorial jurisdiction, by the location of the court, which has passed the impugned order or where the proceeding is pending, are against the object and provision of Clause 14 of the Amalgamation Order and against the judgment of the Supreme Court in cases of Nasiruddin and para 14 of U. P. Rashtriya Chini Mill's case ?

List of Cited Cases

• U. P. Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad, Lucknow v. State of U. P. and others, reported in (1995) 4 SCC 738 : (AIR 1995 SC 2148).

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - University Grants Commission Act, 1956, 1956

Section - S. 2 (f), 3

Act Name - U.P. Intermediate Education Act, , 1921

Section - S. 15

Questions Referred

(a) Whether Adhikari Pariksha Certificate issued by the Gurukul Viswavidyalaya, Vrindavan, Mathura, up to the year 2008 i.e. till it was recognised by the U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education as equivalent to High School, obtained with English as one of the subject and passed in one year is a valid qualification equivalent to High School, regardless of Gurukul having been declared a fake University by the UGC?

(b) Whether the decision of the division bench in Special Appeal No. 1990 of 2011 dated 13.10.2011 (Indrawati Devi v. State of U.P. and others), which holds that ''Adhikari Pariksha'' certificate obtained from Gurukul Viswavidyalaya, Vrindavan, Mathura cannot be held to be a valid degree, does not lay down the correct law?

List of Cited Cases

• Indrawati Devi v. State of U.P. and others (Neutral Citation No. - 2011:AHC:161136-DB)

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - U.P. Intermediate Education Act, , 1921

Section - S.16C

Act Name - U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, 1973

Section - S.2(13)

Questions Referred

(1) Whether the amendment will become effective from the date of the amendment?

(2) Whether the amendment, extending the term of the Committee of Management, will apply to the existing Committee of Management, which has made the amendment or it applies to the Committee of Management which will be formed after the election being held after the amendment?

List of Cited Cases

• Bishun Narain v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 1567
• M.M.I. Inter College, Bijnor v. Dy. Director of Education, 1995 All LJ 427

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art.309

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974,

Section - R. 2 (c)

Questions Referred

Whether the definition of 'family' in Rule 2 (c) of U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servant Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 is inclusive or exhaustive?

List of Cited Cases

• Workmen of American Express International Banking Corporation v. Management of American Express International Banking Corporation (1985) 4 SCC 71
• Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Hooghly Mills Company Ltd. (2012) 2 SCC 489

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, , 1961

Section - S.15(3)(ii

Questions Referred

(i) Whether notice required to be given under Section 15(2) and (3) of Act, 1961 as also under Section 28(2) and (3) of Act, 1961 read with Rules prescribing the format and procedure is mandatory?

(ii)Whether the observations made in Ram Nath Tripathi (supra) that requirement of notice in prescribed form alongwith its enclosures in complete format is mandatory, or directory as observed in Smt. Krishna Jaiswal (supra). Which of these judgement lays down correct law?

List of Cited Cases

• Ram Nath Tripathi v. Commissioner Lucknow Division, Lucknow and other (1992) 2 UPLBEC 1181
• Smt. Krishna Jaiswal v. State of U.P. and others 2005 (2) AWC 1732

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Sub-ordinate Civil Courts Inferior Establishment Rules, 1955,

Section - R.4

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointment (On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) (Third Amendment) Rules, 2001,

Section - R.2

Questions Referred

1.Whether a policy decision with regard to appointment of class III or class IV employees can be taken by the Chief Justice alone or by the Administrative Committee or by the Full Bench or by a committee authorised by the Chief Justice?

2. Since in Rule 4 for appointment on class IV posts namely, chowkidar, waterman, sweeper, etc. discretion has been conferred on the District Judge for making appointment, whether the discretion which is conferred on the District Judge by the rule making authority by means of legislation, can be taken away by the judicial pronouncement and as such even such posts should be filled by advertisement?

3. Whether the decision taken by the committee constituted by the Chief Justice, Administrative Committee or the Full Court is to operate prospectively or will apply retrospectively which would result in removal of all the employees on class III and class IV posts in the district judgeships who have been appointed without advertisement and have been regularized, whether such employees can be removed from service?

4. Where an ad hoc employee is appointed and is continued for a fixed period of three months, his services are extended from time to time and funds are sanctioned by the High Court for paying salary etc. to them, whether such appointment is treated to have obtained assent of the High Court and, therefore, continuance in service is legal and whether such employees who have put in about 8 years or more service, is entitled to be regularize ?

5. Whether engaging or appointing class IV employees on daily wages requires the advertisement?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, , 1982

Section - S. 16, 35, 11 and 10

Act Name - U.P. Intermediate Education Act, , 1921

Section - Chapter III, Regulations 101 to 107

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998,

Section - 13, 12, 10 and 4

Questions Referred

(a) Whether a dependent can claim appointment against a post of teacher even after the post has been requisitioned to the selection Board in view of the Regulations 101 to 106 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act merely because he has qualifications for the same, specifically when on the date of requisition, no such application for compassionate appointment was pending?

(b) Whether Article 16 of the Constitution of India will be applicable to the teachers working in recognized Intermediate Colleges which are under the private management even if aided by the State Government?

(c) Whether the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ved Prakash (Supra) lays down the correct law?

List of Cited Cases

• Ved Prakash v. Hari Krishna Singh and others (2011 (6) ALJ 1)

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Essential Commodities Act, 1955, 1955

Section - S.3

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004,

Section - Cl.28(3)

Questions Referred

(a)Whether the Division Bench in the case of Rajeshwar Prasad (supra) was justified in declaring the mandamus issued by a coordinate bench as bad and thereby directing that any Government Order issued in pursuance thereof may be withdrawn forthwith or it should have referred the matter to a larger bench?

(b) Whether both the Division Benches in the case of Jagannath Upadhyay (supra) and Rajeshwar Prasad (supra) were correct in issuing general mandamus either way in the matter of fresh settlement of shop during the pendency of the appeal before the Commissioner or not?

List of Cited Cases

• Jagannath Upadhyay v. State of U.P. (Misc. Bench No. - 10373 of 2011)
• Rajeshwar Prasad v. State of U.P. and 3 others (Writ - C No. - 36241 of 2014)

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, 1988

Section - S.173, S.170, S.149(2), S.149(4) Proviso

Questions Referred

(i) Whether the insurer can contest a motor accident claim on merits, in particular, in regard to the quantum, in addition to the grounds mentioned in Section 149 (2) of the Act for avoiding liability under the policy of insurance?

(ii) Whether an insurer can prefer an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, questioning the quantum of compensation awarded?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art.16, Art.226

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act., 1971, 1971

Section - S.9

Questions Referred

(1) Whether in the absence of any sanctioned post, can a direction in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India be given for payment of salary when admittedly no post has been sanctioned by the competent authority?

(2) Which of the two decisions in the case of Rajesh Yadav (supra) and Om Prakash Verma (supra) keeping in view the Full Bench decision in the case of Gopal Dubey (supra), lays down the law correctly?

(3) Whether the State Government or its authorities, who are authorized to create posts, by virtue of their inaction can defy creation of posts in an institution keeping in view the larger interest of the society namely education which is specifically in the hands of the State Government?

(4) Whether the State Government under the garb of threat of contempt could proceed to issue a direction for payment of salary to a teacher who was never appointed in the institution as admitted in the present case?

List of Cited Cases

• Rajesh Yadav v. Director of Education (Madhyamik), U. P., Allahabad, [2009 (27) LCD 292] : (2008 (6) ALJ 97)
• Om Prakash Verma, 2003 (1) ESC (All) 263 : (2003 All LJ 211)
• Gopal Dubey v. District Inspector of Schools, 1999 (35) ALR 191 : (1999 All LJ 454)

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art.320

Questions Referred

Where the Commission requires the submission of an online application as well as the submission of a hard copy of the application together with all the requisite documents by a prescribed last date and candidates are placed on notice that the candidature of an applicant who has failed to complete all the prescribed stages by the last date would be rejected, would it be a correct position in law to hold that the Commission is bound to entertain the application though the hard copy together with the documents was received after the last date prescribed merely on the ground that the documents had been dispatched before the last date of the receipt of the application?

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Remittances of Foreign Exchange and Investment in Foreign Exchange Bonds(Immunities and Exemptions) Act, 1991, 1991

Section - S.6(1)(a)

Questions Referred

A. Whether the immunity provided to the bond holder of India Development Bond in US dollars, under Sections 6 and 7 of the Remittance of Foreign Exchange and Investment in Foreign Exchange Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Act, 1991 which includes that no enquiry to be made from bond holder, regarding the source, is also available to gifts, which are found to be bogus gifts, routing the unaccounted money of the bond holder, through such bonds, by purchasing the bonds for consideration in India?

B. Whether the view taken in the judgment dated 26.7.2011 in Income Tax Appeal No. 3 of 2004; Commissioner of Income Tax v. Smt. Usha Omer, (2011) 338 ITR 448, that no investigation can be allowed to be held pertaining to the India Development Bonds which were received from NRI's/Overseas Corporate Bodies as gifts is a correct view, in law?

List of Cited Cases

• Income Tax v. Smt. Usha Omer ((2011) 338 ITR 448)

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art. 225, 226 and 227

Act Name - Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952,

Section - Chapter V-Rules 15, 14, 13, 12, 7 and 1 and Chapter VII, Rule 7

Questions Referred

(a) Whether the Full Bench in the case of Smt. Chawali (supra) could have proceeded to examine the legality/enforceability of the circular issued by Hon'ble The Chief Justice dated 16.12.2013 specifically in the circumstances when no issue was framed in that regard by the Full Bench and it had not been addressed upon by any of the counsel present before the Full Bench in the case of Smt. Chawali (supra)?

(b) Whether general direction to list and tied up cases irrespective of the circulars of Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 16.12.2013 could be issued to the Registry by the Full Bench without affording opportunity to the High Court to have its say in the matter?

(c) Whether the majority opinion of the Full Bench in the case of Smt. Chawali (supra) on the issue is bad for non-consideration of the law laid down by earlier Full Bench in the case of Sanjay Kumar Srivastava (supra)?

(d) Whether the nominated cases must be listed before the same Bench even after there has been a change of roster?

(e) At what stage the assignment of fresh cases to a particular Bench comes to an end?

(f) Whether nomination in the name of the Senior Member of the Bench would suffice or there should be a nomination with the name of all the judges constituting the Bench, in matters is to be heard by more than one Judge?

List of Cited Cases

• Smt. Chawali v. State of U.P. and others (2015(1) ADJ 387 (FB)(LB))

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - University Grants Commission Act, 1956, 1956

Section - S. 3 , 22

Questions Referred

(i) Whether the Division Bench in its judgment dated 10.5.2013 has rightly proceeded to observe that the degrees through off-campus centres in relation to the disputed Universities referred to herein above have been validated as per the Government Order dated 4.3.2013 and are duly recognized in law, and if not, then whether the Division Bench was correct in upholding the degrees as recognized on the basis of the said Government Order?

(ii) Whether the Government Order dated 4.3.2013 amounts to validating such degrees that are otherwise invalid in view of the communications of the University Grants Commission and All India Council for Technical Education?

(iii) Whether the view taken by the Division Bench without assessing the validity of such degrees can be said to be justified only on the mere recital contained in the Government Order dated 4.3.2013?

(iv) Whether the Government Order by itself is a valid executive instruction proceeding to cancel an administrative communication with one of the contenders on 1.1.2010, and if not then whether the view expressed by the Division Bench upholding the same can be said to be valid in law?

List of Cited Cases

• Raj Kishore Pandey & Anr v. State of U. P. ( Writ A no.29640 of 2012 decided on 10.05.2013

Subject

Statutes

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

Section - S. 23

Questions Referred

(a) Whether inclusion of the name of a person in the select panel with reference to an advertisement published prior to the enforcement of the Government Order dated 02.06.2010 i.e. 01.04.2010 would confer any right of appointment even after 01.04.2010?

(b) Whether in view of the Government Order dated 02.06.2010 no fresh appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra can be made even if the selection had taken place earlier?

(c) Whether the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Usha Kumari (supra) and Sheela Yadav (supra) is the correct law?

List of Cited Cases

• Smt. Sheela Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors (Special Appeal No. 765 of 2011, decided on 09.05.2011)
• Smt. Usha Kumari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors( Special Appeal No. 61 of 2014)

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art.226

Act Name - Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, 1971

Section - S. 5A, S.9

Questions Referred

(1) Whether an order passed under Section 5A is appealable under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971?

(2) Whether Sanjay Agarwal's case lays down the correct proposition of law?

List of Cited Cases

• Sanjay Agarwal V. Union of India ( Writ C. No. 14580 of 2012 decided on 26 March, 2012)

Subject

Statutes

Act Name - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, , 1974

Section - S.2(wa), S.372, S.374, S.378

Questions Referred

1. Whether the definition of the word ?victim? as used in Section 2 (wa) would mean any person other than a ?guardian? or ?legal heir? also for the purpose of maintaining an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C.?

2. Whether the ratio of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Edal Singh Vs. State (Supra) states the law correctly keeping in view the conflicting ratios of the Full Bench decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. (Supra) and that of the Patna High Court in the case of Parmeshwar Mandal (Supra)?

List of Cited Cases

• Edal Singh v. State of U. P. & others ( 2014 (4) ALJ 1)
• Parmeshwar Mandal v. State of Bihar(2014 Cri LJ 1046 (Pat)
• M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. v. M/s. Atma Tube Products Ltd( (2014) 1 PLR 1)

Subject

1. Service Law - Education Service - Appointment

Statutes

Act Name - U.P. Intermediate Education Act, , 1921

Section - S.16E(10)

Act Name - U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, , 1982

Section - NA

Questions Referred

As to whether with the aid of Section 32 of U.P. Act No.II of 1921 after enforcement of provisions of U.P. Act No.V of 1982, the authority of State Government/ Director of Education under Section 16-E (10) of Act 1921 still remains intact in the matter of cancelling appointment made on the recommendation of U.P. Secondary Education Selection Board.

Subject

1. Service Law - Education - Qualification - B.P.Ed., B.Ed., LT - Diploma - Principal/Headmaster

Statutes

Act Name - U.P. Intermediate Education Act, , 1921

Section - S.16G

Act Name - Regulations under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921,

Section - Reg. Chapter II - Appendix A - Clause 2

Questions Referred

(I) Whether training qualification B.P.Ed. is equivalent qualification to that of B.Ed., L.T., B.T./C.T. Etc. so as to be covered by the phrase ''equivalent qualification'' of training degree/diploma as contained by Clause-2 of Appendix-A of Chapter-II of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921?

(ii) Whether a teacher possessed of a degree of Post Graduate and training qualification of B.P.Ed. from an institute duly recognized by National Council for Teachers Education is qualified for being considered for appointment as Principal/Headmaster of a recognized High School/Intermediate institution?

(iii) Whether the law laid down by the Division Bench in the case of Vindhyachal Yadav (Supra) is the correct law or not?

Subject

1. Service Law - Education - Reservation - Clubbing - Subject Wise - College Wise - Recruitment Year - Unfilled Vacancies

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art.141, Art.136

Act Name - U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes), 1994, 1994

Section - S. 3(2)

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Higher Eduction Service Commission Act, 1980, 1982, 1982

Section - NA

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Higher Eduction Service Commission Act, 1980, 1982, 1982

Section - S. 12(3)

Questions Referred

1. Whether the rules of reservations under the U.P. Act No. 4 of 1994 are applicable to appointment on the post of lecturers, by direct recruitment, in the aided postgraduate and undergraduate colleges in the State of UP, affiliated to the State Universities by clubbing all the vacancies as provided under Section 12 (3) of the UP Higher Eduction Service Commission Act, 1980 subject-wise; or the vacancies have to be worked out for applicability of rules of reservation college-wise and subject-wise?

2. Whether there has to be plurality posts in the cadre, for applying the rules of reservation, which means more than one; or there has to be at least five posts in the cadre for applying the rules of reservations?

3. Whether the vacancies arising in any recruitment year under Rule 3 (2) of UP Act No. 4 of 1994 can be filled up separately even if they have not been advertised earlier, in that recruitment year or in the subsequent recruitment year, or such reserved vacancies have to be advertised at least once to be carried over for the recruitment in the same year or in the subsequent year?

4. What is the meaning of the words 'unfilled vacancies' in Section 3 (2) of UP Act No. 4 of 1994?

5. Whether Dr. Vishwajeet Singh's case (supra) and the Full Bench decision in Heera Lal's case (supra) have been correctly decided?

Subject

1. Service Law - Education - Shiksha Mitra - Ban

Statutes

Act Name - U.P. Basic Education Act, , 1972

Section - S.19

Questions Referred

(i) Whether a candidate can be denied engagement as a Shiksha Mitra if the process for selection by issuance of an advertisement had commenced prior to the ban imposed by the Government Order dated 2 June 2010?

(ii) Whether the view expressed by the two Division Benches in Smt. Usha Kumari and Shalini is correct or the view expressed by the Division Bench in Priyanka Mall is correct?

Subject

1. Criminal Law - Bail - Appeal - Maintainability - SC/ST Act - Limitation

Statutes

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

Section - S.14A

Act Name - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, , 1974

Section - S. 439

Act Name - Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes ( Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, 2016

Section - S. 14A

Questions Referred

(i) Whether in matters of offences committed before 26.1.2016, from which date amending Act No. 1 of 2016 inserting/adding provisions of appeal against orders allowing or refusing an application for bail by the Special or Exclusive Special Judge under S.C./S.T. Act has been enforced, the filing of appeal will be incompetent on the ground of offence having been committed prior to enforcement of above provisions of Section 14-A and an application for bail under general provisions of law Section 439 Cr.P.C. before this Court, would be competent as held in the case of Janardan Pandey (supra)?

(ii) Whether the provisions of newly added Section 14-A (3) and its proviso prescribing the limitation period of 90 days from the date of order, further providing for the condonation of delay by the High Court in appeals preferred beyond the period of 90 days and again providing a maximum period of 180 days, after which no appeal shall be entertained, puts absolute bar on the right of appeal and renders the aggrieved persons remediless or it only suspends the general provisions of seeking bail from the High Court under the provisions of Section 439 Cr.P.C. for a limited period of 180 days after which the provisions of Section 14-A becomes obsolete and ineffective for ever and the right to seek bail before the High Court under general provisions of law Section 439 Cr.P.C. stands revived as held in the case of Rohit (supra) or the accused may move fresh application for bail before Special or Exclusive Special Court and in case of its rejection may have fresh right of appeal under Section 14-A of the Act?

Subject

1. Criminal Law - Remedy - Revision

Statutes

Act Name - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, , 1974

Section - S.156(3), S.379(2)

Questions Referred

(1) Whether an order made under Section 156 (3) of the Code rejecting an application for a direction to the police to register and investigate, is revisable under Section 397?

(2) If the answer to Question (1) is in the affirmative, then, whether in a revision filed against an order rejecting an application under Section 156 (3), the prospective accused is also a necessary party and is required to be heard before a final order is pass?

Subject

1. Constitution - Service Law - Officiating Appointment - Salary

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art. 16 , 309, 141, 226.

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Financial Handbook Vol. II (Parts II to IV),

Section - Clause (1), (ii) and (iii) /Para 49

Questions Referred

(a) Whether the law laid down by the Division Bench of the High Court in the case of Prem Chandra Srivastava which directs that merely on holding additional charge of an additional post, the incumbent would become entitled to salary of higher post even in absence of sanction from the finance department, lays down the correct law or not?

(b) What is the effect of the order of the Supreme Court dated 4 September 2013 dismissing the appeal filed by the State of U.P. against the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court at Lucknow in the case of Prem Chandra Srivastava (supra)?

(c) Whether proviso to Para 49 of Chapter VI of Financial Handbook, Vol. II (Parts II to IV) which requires the concurrence of the finance department, if officiating appointment is to be continued beyond 90 days would be applicable in respect of appointments covered by Clauses (i) & (ii) of Para 49 or the said proviso would be applicable to appointments under Clause (iii) only?

Subject

1. Constitution - Service Law - Writ - Alternative Remedy - Armed Forced Tribunal - Supreme Court

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Arts. 32, 226

Act Name - Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, 2007

Section - S. 3 , 30, 31

Questions Referred

(a) Whether the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the final order of the Tribunal made under Section 14 can be said to have been taken away by any stretch of interpretation of the statutory provisions of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. The necessary corollary being that can an act of Parliament whittle down any of the constitutional remedies made available under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is one of the basic features of the Constitution of India as laid down in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India?

(b) Whether the remedy of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be denied by the High Court to a litigant on the ground that he has a statutory remedy available before the Apex Court by way of an appeal under Section 30/31 of AFT Act, 2007, thereby he loses his constitutional right of judicial review, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India specially in the circumstance when the order of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India itself can be subjected to challenge before the Apex Court by way of Special Leave to Appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India?

(c) Whether the High Court may refuse to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, because of availability of statutory alternative remedy only in cases where after exhaustion of such statutory remedy his right to seek judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not lost?

Subject

1. Service Law - Qualification - Drug Inspector

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art.309

Act Name - Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, 1940

Section - S.33

Act Name - Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945,

Section - R.49

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh State Drug Control Officers Service Rules,1995,

Section - R.5(1)

Questions Referred

(1) Whether the experience required in the proviso to Rule 49 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 is only 2 a bar of authorization to inspect the manufacture of substances, or is an essential qualification under Rule 49 for direct appointment as Drug Inspector under Rule 5 (4) of the U.P. State Drug Control Gazetted Officers' Service Rules, 1995?

(2) Whether the Division Bench judgment in State of U.P. Vs. Zunab Ali & Ors. has been correctly decided?

Subject

1. Administrative Law - Freehold - Procedure - Government Order - Awarded

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art.14, Art.300A

Questions Referred

1. Whether the application of the petitioner dated 25.7.2005 submitted for grant of freehold right on the basis of the Government Order dated 1.12.1998 (Paragraph 7) and the Government Order dated 10.12.2002 (paragraph 5) was entitled to be considered in accordance with the Government policy as was in existence on the date of application or the Government policy as amended by Government Order dated 4.8.2006, was to be taken into consideration while deciding the application on 18.12.2006?

2. Whether the Division Bench judgment in Dr. O.P. Gupta v. State of U.P., 2009 (4) AWC 4038, lays down the correct law?

Subject

1. Constitution - Scheduled Caste - Kasera, Shilpkar

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art. 341 (1) and (2)

Questions Referred

(1) Whether 'Kasera' is a sub-caste of 'Shilpkar' which is notified in the category of Scheduled Caste under Article 341 (1) and (2) of the Constitution of India?

(2) Whether the judgment dated 23.12.2011 in Service Bench No. 2080 of 2011 (State of U.P. and another v. Vijay Shanker and another) is correct in law?

Subject

1. Tax - Sales Tax - Refund

Statutes

Act Name - The Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948, 1948

Section - S. 29, 9 and 10

Questions Referred

In case, where the case is remanded back by the appellate authority to the assessing officer either under Section 9 or Section 10 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act after setting aside the assessment order without any specific direction to refund the amount, whether it is obligatory on the part of the assessing officer to refund the amount and to pay the interest in case, if the amount is not refunded within the specific period?

Subject

1. Co-operative Society

Statutes

Act Name - U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, , 1966

Section - S.38(1)

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules,1968,

Section - Rule 454

Questions Referred

Whether, the division benches in Kamil Kidwai Vs. State of U.P., 1992 (10) Lucknow Civil Decisions, 263, followed in Writ Petition No. 45314 of 2014, in so far as the exercise of power by a committee of management of a cooperative society, under rule 454, is subject to grant of sanction by Registrar under section 38(1) of the Act lays down the correct law?

Subject

1. Reservation - Horizontal - Compartmentalized

Statutes

Act Name - U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependants of Freedom Fighters and Ex-servicemen) Act, , 1993

Section - S.3(1)

Questions Referred

(a)Whether the judgment and order of the Division Bench in the case of Rajeev Kumar (supra) insofar as it lays down that "the reservation has to be spread evenly for the representation of female category candidates to the extent of minimum of 20 per cent. each category", is the correct principle of law in the matter of application of horizontal reservation with reference to the provisions applicable in the State of U.P. or not?

(b)Whether the application of horizontal reservation has to be affected in terms of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sheo Shankar Singh (supra) and Brijendra Deo Mishra (supra), referred to above, or the reservation has to be applied compartmentalized, as has been suggested in the case of Rajeev Kumar (supra)?

(c) What should be the mechanism for application of horizontal reservation in respect of various categories provided therein namely women, dependents of freedom fighter, physical handicapped etc. in the State of U.P.?

Subject

1. Service Law - Cooperative

Statutes

Act Name - U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, , 1966

Section - S.22(2)

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Federation Limited Karmchari Seva Niyamawali, 1980,

Section - Rule 83

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975,

Section - Regulation 84

Questions Referred

1.Whether Regulation 84 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees' Service Regulation 1975 read with Rule 83 of the U.P. Co-operative Federation Limited Karmchari Seva Niyamawali, 1980 services can be harmonized so as to uphold the punishment by way of dismissal of an employee coupled with an order directing recovery of an amount on the charge of a financial embezzlement or misappropriation to be included within the fold of Regulation 84 ?

2.Whether the law laid down in the case of Virendra Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and others (Supra) in respect of the true import of Regulation 84 read with Rule 83 aforesaid does not state the correct position of law as against the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge in paragraph no.13 in the case of Satya Narain Mishra Vs. Praband Nideshak and another (Supra) and alternatively as to whether the statement of law in that regard as explained in the judgment of Satya Narain Mishra Vs. Praband Nideshak and another (Supra) should be accepted as the correct position of law ?

Subject

1. Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail

Statutes

Act Name - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, , 1974

Section - S. 438

Questions Referred

(i)Whether the Court would have no jurisdiction to reject the anticipatory bail after considering the grounds of compelling reasons mentioned in the affidavit being found not appealing, which would amount nothing but to approach this Court directly?

(ii)Whether amongst the grounds which have been enumerated in the judgment in the case of Vinod Kumar (supra), the ground at Serial (A) requires any reconsideration so as to preclude the co-accused approaching this Court directly in case the other co-accused's regular bail/anticipatory bail is rejected by the Court of Sessions and whether he be also subjected to filing such an affidavit, showing therein the circumstances in which he had to feel compelled to approach this Court directly?

(iii)Whether amongst the grounds which have been enumerated in the judgment in the case of Vinod Kumar (supra), the ground at Serial (B) requires any reconsideration as to whether an accused, who is not residing within the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court concerned, faces a threat of arrest, should be allowed to approach the High Court directly, to move an anticipatory bail application by the logic given above in Para 6 of this judgment?

(iv)Whether such anticipatory bail applications which do not contain any compelling reason to approach this Court directly, should be entertained?

Subject

1. Criminal Law - Remission

Statutes

Act Name - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, , 1974

Section - S. 432, 433 and 482

Questions Referred

(1) Whether the directions issued by the Division Bench in Ganesh (supra) that too general directions, commanding the Chief Judicial Magistrates to release convicts whose applications for remission/premature release have remained pending beyond a particular period, as interim measure, till disposal of the said applications, is in accordance with law especially in view of the Constitution Bench decision in V. Sriharan @ Murugan and others (supra) and H. Nilofer Nisha (supra)?

(2) Whether the High Court in exercise of its criminal appellate jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. can confer jurisdiction upon the Chief Judicial Magistrates/Magistrates in the District Courts which the law otherwise does not confer upon them?

Subject

1. Tax - Income Tax

Statutes

Act Name - Income Tax Act, 1961, 1961

Section - S. 260-A (2)

Act Name - Limitation Act, 1963, 1963

Section - S. 4-24, 29 (2)

Questions Referred

Whether the period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal under Section 260-A (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is subject to the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963 as provided under Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963?

Subject

1. Constitution - Jurisdiction - Abuse of Process of Court

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Article 226 and 134-A

Questions Referred

i) Whether the subsequent Writ Petition No.8870 (MB) of 2020 filed by the petitioner after final judgment dated 17.05.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.12081 (MB) of 2009 is an abuse of process of the Court, as before filing the Writ Petition No.8870 (MB) of 2020, the petitioner has filed Civil Misc. Application No. 87559 of 2019 for further direction and issuance of certificate for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court under Article 134 of the Constitution and during the pendency of the said application, the present writ petition has been filed?

ii) Whether the second Writ Petition No.8870 (MB) of 2020 filed by the petitioner is maintainable in view of the fact that the petitioner is seeking implementation of the judgment and order dated 17.05.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.12081 (MB) of 2009?

iii) Whether the second Writ Petition No.8870 (MB) of 2020 is barred by the principle of res judicata/constructive res judicata in view of the fact that while allowing Writ Petition No.12081 (MB) of 2009 vide judgment and order dated 17.05.2019, the respondents have been directed to process the application of the petitioner for conversion of lease-hold-rights into free-hold, in accordance with law laid down by the Full Bench in Anand Kumar Sharma's case (supra) and, thus, the issue regarding the relevant date for conversion charges was very much involved in Writ Petition No.12081 (MB) of 2009?

Subject

1. Constitution - Writ - Service Law - Retrenched Employees

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Article 309

Questions Referred

i) Whether the Division Bench judgments in the case of Shankatha Prasad Mishra (supra); Hridayesh Dayal Srivastava (supra); Mirtuyanjay Prasad Singh (supra); Keshav Ram Pandey (supra) and State of U.P. and others v. Amar Pal Singh, [Special Appeal (Defective) No. 646 of 2016 decided on 25.10.2016] have correctly held that the benefit of past services rendered by retrenched employees of Auto Tractors Limited, who have been subsequently absorbed in Government service, such as the petitioner, would count towards their qualifying service for purposes of calculation of retiral dues payable by the State Government?

(ii) Whether a retrenched employee of Auto Tractors Limited such as the petitioner, who got absorbed in State Government Service subsequently as per the relevant rules known as the Uttar Pradesh Absorption of Retrenched Employees of Government or Public Corporations in Government Service Rules 1991 are entitled to count their previous services rendered by them under the erstwhile employer i.e. the Auto Tractors Limited, for calculation of qualifying service for purposes of retirement benefits under the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules 1961 and other ancillary rules and Government Orders in this regard as also Government Orders dated 11.11.1993 and 10.7.1998 as modified vide Government Order dated 28.12.2001?

(iii)Whether Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Ram Shanker Gupta passed in Special Appeal (Defective) No. 553 of 2015 decided on 27.11.2015 is in conflict with the earlier decisions by Coordinate Benches rendered in the case of Shankatha Prasad Mishra (surpa); Hridayesh Dayal Srivastava (surpa); Mirtuyanjay Prasad Singh (surpa); Keshav Ram Pandey (supra) and State of U.P. and others v. Amar Pal Singh, [Special Appeal (Defective) No. 646 of 2016 decided on 25.10.2016] or not? If so, which of the two sets of Division Bench judgment lays down the law correctly with regard to question No. 2 as rephrased by us herein above?

Subject

1. Constitution - Writ - Service Law

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Article 226

Questions Referred

(a) Whether the Division Bench judgments dated 19.07.2010 and 24.05.2018 rendered in Special Appeal No. 478 of 2010, State of U.P. and another v. Nand Kumar Singh and in Writ Petition No.13751 (S/B) of 2018, Gyan Prakash Pandey v. State of U.P. and others (2018 (5) ALJ 547 (ALL)), respectively, correctly construe and interpret the provisions of paragraph 11 of the Government Order dated 28.05.1997 in the light of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R. S. Sharma, which is based on the interpretation and construction of the O.M. dated 12.01.1988 issued by DoPT that is similarly worded as paragraph 11 of the Government Order dated 28.05.1997 issued by the State Government ?

(b) Whether the Division Bench judgments of this Court in the case of Nand Kumar Singh (supra) and Gyan Prakash Pandey (supra) have failed to appreciate that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sangram Keshari Nayak (supra) did not record its disagreement or disapproval of the meaning, purport and application of O.M. dated 12.01.1988 in the earlier judgment rendered by a three Hon'ble Judges Bench in R. S. Sharma (AIR 2000 SC 2337) (supra) but opined that R. S. Sharma (supra) was not applicable in the facts of the case before it, therefore, the law declared by R. S. Sharma (supra) was binding?

Subject

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

Statutes

Act Name - U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, , 1982

Section - S.35

Questions Referred

a) Whether the law laid down in the case of Usha Goel (supra) as followed in the case of Shail Kumari (supra) providing that for a teacher to be eligible for promotion under Rule 14 of 1998 Rules, he must have 5 years teaching experience subsequent to his having acquired the essential qualifications prescribed qua the post on which he is to be promoted is the correct law?

(b) Whether the word 'as such' used in Rule 14 of the 1998 Rules refer to the post on which the promotion is to be made from the post in the lower cadre and the qualifications prescribed thereto only and does not require teaching experience of 5 years subsequent to the acquisition of such minimum qualification qua the promotional post?

Subject

1. National Highways - Compensation

Statutes

Act Name - National Highways Act, 1956,

Section - 3D (1), 3D (2)

Questions Referred

(i) Whether a subsequent purchaser of the land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956, after publication of declaration under Section 3D(1), is not entitled to receive compensation on the strength of his vendor's title in view of Section 3D(2)?

(ii) Which of the judgments (i) Surendra Nath Singh Yadav (supra) or (ii) Vipin Kumar Agarwal, Asha Devi and Smt. Gyanti Singh, lay down the law correctly?

Subject

1. Service Law - Education - Retirement

Statutes

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules,1981,

Section - R 29

Questions Referred

(a) Whether the law as laid down by the Division bench of this Court in the case of State of U.P. and others v. Ramesh Chandra Tiwari, is the correct law or not?

(b) Whether the proviso to Rule 29 of Rules, 1981, as it stands on the statute book as on date, admits of extension of service of the teacher of retirement beyond 30th June following the date of retirement or not?

(c) Whether the conscious decision of the State Government in terms of the Government order dated 9.12.2014 providing that the teachers would still retire on 30th June, following the date of retirement can be said to be bad or arbitrary in any manner so as to require issuance of a mandate to the State Government to make the amendments in proviso to Rule 29 of Rules 1981 merely because it has altered the academic session from 1st April of the year to 31st March of the succeeding year?

Subject

1. Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Probation

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art.16, Art.309

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974,

Section - R.5

Questions Referred

1.Whether the appointment of a person on a compassionate basis on probation is permissible in law ?

2.Whether an appointment made under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974 (Dying in Harness Rules) is a permanent or a temporary appointment?

Subject

1. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
2. Procedure

Statutes

Act Name - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, 1908

Section - O.18 R.4

Act Name - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, 1988

Section - S.169

Questions Referred

Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal constituted in U.P. under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can permit, while hearing a claim petition, to file affidavits of the witnesses and treat them as Examination-in-Chief and may further permit the parties to cross-examine witnesses on the basis of such affidavits ?

Subject

1. Constitution - Writ - Service Law
2. Home Guard - Civil Post

Statutes

Act Name - U.P. Home Guards Act, , 1963

Section - S.7, S.10 Expln.

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art.311(2), Art.226, Art.227

Act Name - U.P. Home Guards Service Rules,1992,

Section - R.2

Questions Referred

(1). Whether Division Bench judgment in Riasat Ali v. State of U.P., 2003 (4) AWC 3046 holding that a Home Guard under U.P. Home Guards Act, 1963 is not holder of a civil post in view of expression to Section 10 is correct or Division Bench judgment in Special Appeal No. 143 of 2012 (Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. and others) relying on Full Bench judgment in Sheela Devi and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2010(5) ADJ 86 (FB), which is a case relating to Anganbari Karyakatri and Supreme Court's judgment in Davinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2010(4) ESC 582 (SC) which is in the context of Punjab Home Guards Act, 1947 and Punjab Home Guards and Civil Defence (Field) Class III Service Rules, 1983 holding that Home Guard is a holder of civil post, is correct?

(2) Whether Division Bench in Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. and others (supra) has rightly held that Home Guard in State of U.P. governed by U.P. Home Guards Act, 1963 is not holder of a civil post disagreeing with the earlier Division Bench judgment in Riasat Ali v. State of U.P. (supra) and relying on Full Bench judgment in Sheela Devi and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2010(5) ADJ 86 (FB) relating to Anganbari Karyakatri and Supreme Court's judgment in Davinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others (supra) which was not in relation to U.P. Home Guards Act, 1963, without referring the matter to Larger Bench?

List of Cited Cases

• Sheela Devi and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2010(5) ADJ 86 (FB)
• Davinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2010(4) ESC 582 (SC).
• Riasat Ali v. State of U.P., 2003 (4) AWC 3046 : (2003 All LJ 3073

Subject

1. Tax - Income Tax

Statutes

Act Name - Income Tax Act, 1961,

Section - S.12 AA(2)

Questions Referred

(i) Whether the non disposal of an application for registration, by granting or refusing registration, before the expiry of six months as provided under Section 12AA(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would result in deemed grant of registration?

(ii) Whether the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Society for the Promotion of Education, Adventure Sport & Conservation of Environment v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2008) 216 CTR (All) 167, holding that the effect of non consideration of the application for registration within the time fixed by Section 12AA(2) would be deemed grant of registration, is legally correct?

Subject

1. Sale Deed - Registered

Statutes

Act Name - Registration Act, 1908,

Section - S.35, S.66

Questions Referred

(a) Whether after a sale-deed has been registered, the Assistant Registrar has any authority of law to cancel the registered sale-deed under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 even if allegation of impersonation/fraud are made?

(b) Whether the allegations of fraud are essentially, an allegation of fact which need examination of oral or documentary evidence and can be adjudicated on the basis of evidence to be led by the parties before competent Civil Court?

(c) Whether the judgment in the case of Raj Kumari (supra) or the judgment in the case of Radhey Shyam Arora (supra) lays down the correct law?

Subject

1. Constitution - Writ - Delay and Laches

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950,

Section - Article 226

Questions Referred

Whether the Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should decline to entertain a writ petition on the ground of unexplained delay and laches is the subject-matter of several decisions of the Supreme Court?

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

Act Name - Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952,

Section - Chapter VIII Rule 5

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

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. Tax - Indirect - Sales Tax
2. Circular

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. Civil Law - Municipalities
2. Interpretation of Statutes

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. Civil Law - Agrarian
2. Territorial Jurisdiction

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. Power to revoke or modify detention order
3. Communication to detainee regarding his right to represent
4. Right to Represent

Statutes

Act Name - National Security Act, 1980, 1980

Section - S.14, 3(2)

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

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

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

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

Statutes

Act Name - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, 1894

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

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?