BAIL/24930 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 13-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1561
HEADNOTE hearing
Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B - Bail - Principles governing grant or refusal of bail - Applicant a habitual offender with 52 criminal cases of cheating and forgery - No explanation for delay of four years in lodging FIR - Role as property mediator alleged in fraudulent sale transaction - Gravity of offence and antecedents disentitle applicant to bail - Co-accused's bail not a ground for parity - Held, discretion to grant bail must be exercised judiciously considering antecedents, gravity, likelihood of tampering with evidence and repetition of offence - Bail refused. (Paras 14, 20, 22, 23, and 25) HELD: This Court has taken into consideration of the fact that the applicant has almost 52 criminal cases pending against him under section 420 IPC. Under Schedule 1 of the Code or Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), an offence under Section 420 IPC is cognizable and non-bailable and is triable by a Magistrate of the First Class, therefore, the instant offence is serious in nature. It is also noted that he is habitual offender of commission of the same nature of the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. In view of the aforesaid facts, there is great apprehension in the mind of the Court that applicant upon release on bail may tamper with evidence and may influence the witnesses. There are also great apprehension that he may breach the conditions imposed by this Court and can repeat the same nature of offence in future. Taking into the consideration of aforesaid reasons, this Court cannot take lenient view while exercising its discretionary jurisdiction. (Para 22) It is pertinent to note that co-accused in the matter who has been released on bail, however, bearing no resemblance to the present applicant as he is habitual offender and has criminal history of 52 cases. (Para 23) Bail Application rejected. (E-14)
Title: Kamlesh Yadav Vs. State of U.P.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Chandra Dhari Singh
English hearing
WRIA/5494 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 07-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1555
HEADNOTE hearing
Service Law - Assistant Teacher Appointment - Equivalence of D.Ed. and D.El.Ed. - Petitioner completed two-year Diploma in Education (D.Ed.) from M.P. Board (2014) and qualified TET (2015) - Appointment order issued in 2024 but school not allotted; later appointment cancelled on ground that D.Ed. not equivalent to Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.) as required under NCTE Regulations - Challenge thereto. Held: NCTE notification (23.08.2010) prescribes "Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known)" as minimum qualification. However, syllabus comparison reveals substantial differences: D.El.Ed. focuses on child psychology, elementary education pedagogy, and inclusive education, while D.Ed. is more general, oriented towards upper primary. Therefore, D.Ed. cannot be treated as equivalent to D.El.Ed. Appointment rightly cancelled. No interference warranted. Writ Petition dismissed.
Title: Sanghpriya Gautam Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
English hearing
WRIA/10380/2024 Judgment/Order Date: 13-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1550
HEADNOTE hearing
Intermediate Education Act, 1921 - Back Wages - Principle of "No Work No Pay" - Not applicable where employee is prevented from working due to employer's illegal order - Petitioner's appointment was duly approved on 20.5.1994. Director of Education cancelled the approval on 27.2.1998, which was quashed by the High Court on 5.10.2023 with a direction that "necessary consequences will follow". In contempt proceedings, the authorities stated in compliance affidavit that the petitioner has been treated in service w.e.f. 13.5.1998. However, DIOS denied salary on the plea that petitioner had not actually worked after cancellation of approval. Held: Principle of "no work no pay" does not apply where the employer itself restrains the employee from working. Once the cancellation order dated 27.2.1998 was set aside, the original approval revived, and petitioner stood reinstated w.e.f. 13.5.1998. Since the fault lay with the employer in not permitting him to work, the petitioner is entitled to back wages from 13.5.1998 till retirement along with consequential benefits. (Paras 10, 11, 12). (E-5)
Title: Abdul Wahab Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Vikram D Chauhan
English hearing
WTAX/71 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 30-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1530
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950- Article 226-Customs Act,1962-Sections 28H, 28I & 28J-Customs Tariff Act,1975: Chapter 8 Vs Chapter 20-M/s Rawder Petroleum Pvt. Ltd. imported "roasted areca nuts" after obtaining an advance ruling from the Customs Authority for Advance Ruling (CAAR), which classified the product under Tariff Item 2008 19 20 (Chapter 20 of Customs Tariff Act)-The Customs Department disputed this classification and claimed the product was instead "dried areca nuts" falling under Chapter 8, specifically Tariff Item 0802 80-The department challenged the CAAR ruling via Custom Appeals and also refused to release the imported goods, citing adverse test reports from CRCL, New Delhi-The importer, in turn, filed a writ petition for release of the goods and to enforce the advance ruling-The Court upheld the CAAR's ruling, it held that roasting is a process distinct from drying involving high heat that alters the physical and chemical properties of the nut-Since Chapter 8 deals with moderate heat/drying and Chapter 20 includes roasted nuts, the classification under 2008 19 20 was correct-Conflicting lab reports were presented, private lab reported moisture content below 4%, declaring the nuts as roasted while CRCL, New Delhi(govt. lab) found moisture content above 7%, declaring them dried and unfit for human consumption- However, The court found merit in the importer's claim and circumstances-Hence, the importer's goods cannot be treated as mis declared solely based on disputed lab reports-the Impugned letter dated 27.12.2024 and seizure memo dated 10.03.2025 quashed- Customs directed to release the goods immediately. (Para 1 to 46) The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)
Title: M/S Rawder Petroleum Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Rajan Roy,Om Prakash Shukla
English hearing
WRIC/1002411/1999 Judgment/Order Date: 16-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1523
HEADNOTE hearing
(A) Administrative Law - Firearms - Deposit of licensed firearms during Parliamentary elections - Arms Act, 1959 - Section 24-A & 24-B - Validity of police direction requiring deposit - No suspension/cancellation of licence - Lack of statutory backing - Election Commission - licence-holders cannot be compelled to deposit firearms unless licence is suspended or cancelled in accordance with law - no nexus between objective sought to be achieved and impugned action - Deposit of licensed firearm cannot be enforced in absence of statutory order suspending/cancelling licence - Police cannot compel deposit solely on commencement of election process - Authorities shall not compel firearm license holders to deposit firearms without a prior written notice, especially if they have valid licenses, no criminal antecedents, and were granted the license for security purposes. (Para - 8, 20 to 23) Petitioners, including advocates and law-abiding citizens, holding valid and renewed firearm licenses for their security - having no criminal antecedents, were directed by police officials to deposit their firearms at the police station due to upcoming parliamentary elections - by means of a general order without any written notice - Petitioners filed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the authorities not to compel them to deposit their firearms. (Para - 2,3) HELD: - In order to ensure peace and peaceful conduct of elections, firearms may be deposited to the police station concerned by issuing a written notice, but the authorities in no case shall compel the firearm licence holders to deposit their firearms in case they have a valid license, no criminal antecedents, and the license was issued for security. Respondents were directed not to compel the petitioners to deposit their firearms without a prior written notice. For causing harassment to the petitioners by means of a general order, a cost of Rs. 25,000/- was awarded to be paid to the petitioners within six months. (Para - 21 to 24) Petition disposed of. (E-7)
Title: Mohd. Arif Khan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Irshad Ali
English hearing
WRIC/1000570/2001 Judgment/Order Date: 23-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1521
HEADNOTE hearing
(A) Administrative Law - Judicial review of an administrative order - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 132 - Whether a subsequent officer has the jurisdiction to cancel a predecessor's order without providing an opportunity of hearing - An administrative order passed by a subsequent officer, which cancels a predecessor's order, is invalid and liable to be quashed if it is done without notice, without an opportunity of hearing, and without a vested power of review.(Para - 7 to 10) Petitioner, a Scheduled Caste landless agricultural labourer in possession of land for over 40 years - challenged the Sub-Divisional Officer's order cancelling earlier grant without notice - passed allegedly on social forestry claim - without affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. (Para - 3 to 6) HELD: - Impugned order was quashed on the grounds that it was passed without notice or opportunity of hearing, and the officer had no jurisdiction to review the earlier order passed by his predecessor. (Para - 10,11,12) Petition Allowed. (E-7)
Title: Laxmi Objection Filed Appropriate Bench & Ors. Vs. U.P. Zila Adhikari/ Sub-Divisional Officer Misrikh Sitapur & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Irshad Ali
English hearing
WRIC/31912 /2018 Judgment/Order Date: 15-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1510
HEADNOTE hearing
Civil Law - U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 - Inclusion in Grant-in-Aid List - Government Order dated 07.09.2006 - Government Order dated 14.07.2020 - Petitioner's institution granted permanent recognition in 1986 - Claim for grant-in- aid wrongly rejected firstly on non- existent ground of suspicious signature and thereafter on unsustainable grounds including appointment of two Class-IV employees - Petitioner's earlier writ ppetition No.66902 of 2009 allowed with categorical positive direction that if there is some optimum limit the petitioner shall be adjusted against such institution or alternative arrangement shall be made - Despite that, respondents again rejected claim which was quashed in Writ Petition No.48835 of 2011 and special appeal dismissed. Held : Claim was rejected on grounds not sustainable in law, right of petitioner crystallised under Government Order dated 07.09.2006 and subsequent Government Order dated 14.07.2020, which provided that it was not feasible to open a new institution or to establish a new institution on grant-in-aid, could not defeat such crystallised right, rejection on pretext of new policy misconceived â?? Once State Government had extended benefit of grant-in-aid to similarly placed institution denial to petitioner was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Impugned order set aside, Special Secretary, Basic Education, U.P. directed to take petitioner's institution on grant-in-aid and provide full financial aid forthwith - Writ petition allowed. Allowed. (E-5)
Title: C/M Janhit Madhyamik Vidyalaya & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Saral Srivastava
English hearing
WRIC/14892/2025 Judgment/Order Date: 23-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1505
HEADNOTE hearing
(A) Writ Jurisdiction - Registration of Documents - Challenging Official Act of Sub-Registrar - Registration Act, 1908 - Section 34 - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 22 - Partition Act, 1893 - Section 4 - Rules/Regulations - Rule 285 in UP Registration Manual - Duty of Registering Officer - Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 - Writ jurisdiction not to be exercised to usurp that of the civil Court - Petitioner must find his remedy in the civil court - For a party to challenge the official act of the registering authority, there must be reliance on the documents presented for registration. (Para - 10,11) Petitioner, co-sharer in inherited property - challenged the Sub-Registrar's act of registering a sale deed executed by his cousins through a power of attorney - arguing the Sub-Registrar failed to perform his statutory duty under Section 34 of the Registration Act - breach of preferential right under Section 22 Hindu Succession Act. (Para - 1, 2, 7) HELD: - Writ petition was not maintainable as the underlying controversy between the parties was civil in nature. Petitioner must seek his remedy in a civil court and refused to exercise its writ jurisdiction to interfere with the official act of the Sub-Registrar. (Para - 10 to 12) Petition disposed of. (E-7)
Title: Kamlesh Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Arindam Sinha,Avnish Saxena
English hearing
WRIC/13012/2025 Judgment/Order Date: 06-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1502
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950- Article 226-SARFAESI ACT-Rule 9(5)- Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002-The petitioner filed a writ seeking a refund of Rs 17.49 lakhs, which was 25% of the bid amount deposited by him an e- auction conducted by the respondent Bank on 29.12.2023-This amount was forfeited by the Bank when he failed to pay the remaining 75% within the stipulated time, as per Rules 9(5) of the Rule 9(5) of the Rules,2002-the petitioner argued that the forfeiture was unjust since the Bank later withdrew the SARFAESI proceedings and re-initiated them, which he claimed invalidated the original forfeiture and demanded refund on equitable grounds-The court held that forfeiture under Rule 9(5) is a statutory consequence not subject to equitable considerations-The petitioner failed to demonstrate any exceptional or extraneous circumstances that justified his failure to deposit the remaining amount-The withdrawal and re-initiation of SARFAESI proceedings by the Bank did not invalidate the prior forfeiture.(Para 1 to 11) The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)
Title: Anil Kumar Jaiswal Vs. U.O.I. & Anr.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Shekhar B. Saraf,Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
English hearing
WRIC/12360/2025 Judgment/Order Date: 23-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1497
HEADNOTE hearing
Civil Law - The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 - Sections 10 & 16 - Under Section 10, the Telegraph Authority is empowered to place and maintain telegraph lines and posts on private land subject to payment of compensation for damage; and under Section 16(1), if such exercise is resisted or obstructed, the District Magistrate may, in his discretion, permit the authority to proceed notwithstanding such resistance. Held : the District Magistrate is not required to pass an order under Section 16(1) of the Act in every case where a person, on whose property the transmission line is being laid, raises an objection or files a representation before the District Magistrate. District Magistrate is only required to pass an order under Section 16(1) when the Telegraph Authority refers a particular matter to the District Magistrate for passing an order therein. Petitioner objected to the laying down of transmission lines over his property. Court granted liberty to the Telegraph Authority to refer the matter to the District Magistrate under Section 16(1) of the Act for dealing with the said obstruction/resistance/ representation made by the petitioner. (Para 9, 11) Allowed. (E-5)
Title: Antram Goyal Vs. Power Grid Neemrana Bareilly Transmission Ltd. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Shekhar B. Saraf,Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
English hearing
WRIC/11196/2025 Judgment/Order Date: 06-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1486
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Civil Law-Constitution of India,1950- Article 226-Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Act,1961-Section 15(2) & (3)- The petitioner an elected member of the Kshettra Panchayat submitted a non- confidence motion against the Block Pramukh-The notice was supported by 70 out of 100 elected members and submitted to the Collector u/s 15(2) of the Act,1961-Instead of convening a meeting, the Collector rejected the motion on 20.03.2025 citing affidavits from 69 members denying their support for the motion-Held, once a non-confidence motion u/s 15(2) of the Act is validly submitted with signatures of at least half of the elected members, the Collector is statutorily obligated to convene a meeting within 30 days and cannot reject the motion based on belated rebuttal affidavits or enter into disputed questions of fact such as forgery or coercion-The Court quashed the Collector's order rejecting the motion and directed a summary verification of signatures from Panchayat records, reiterating that the Collector's role is limited to a prima facie satisfaction, not detailed inquiry.(Para 1 to 31) The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)
Title: Smt. Bandana Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Anjani Kumar Mishra,Jayant Banerji
English hearing
WRIC/10898/2024 Judgment/Order Date: 27-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1478
HEADNOTE hearing
Civil Law - Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 - Sections 2(za) & 14 - Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Nominated representative of a person with mental illness - Section 14(4) of MH Act, 2017 enumerates five different categories of persons, who can be appointed, in case no nominated representative is appointed by a person under Section 14(1) of MH Act, 2017 - There is no criteria or suitability and also there is no mechanism provided under the MH Act, 2017 for appointment of a representative to take care of such intellectually challenged persons or their asset. This legal vacuum has been considered by the Courts and each time, the Courts had exercised its parens patriae jurisdiction while appointing a representative or a guardian under the MH Act, 2017. While exercising parens patriae jurisdiction, Courts have to apply the "wills and preferences" of the individual. The "wills and preferences" of the intellectually challenged person have to be determined either in the background of advance directives as stated hereinabove or in the absence of advance directives, it ought to be guided by the factors which point towards the 'wish & intent' of the said mentally ill person. (Para 13, 14, 15) B. Constitution of India, 1950 -Article 226 - Examination of the validity of order - When a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or by a reply, otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out by the said statutory functionary. In the instant case, Board rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner had a criminal history of two cases. Court rejected the additional explanation of the Board asserted in the counter affidavit that the offences appeared to be involving moral turpitude. (Para 9) C. Moral Turpitude - Meaning - The term 'moral turpitude' is not defined under the law - It refers to instances where an individual indulges in acts which are against morality, integrity, and ethics. Courts have identified offences involving moral turpitude to include financial misappropriation, criminal breach of trust, theft, sexual misconduct, etc. and refers to conduct which is inherently base, vile, or depraved - In the instant case, criminal cases registered against petitioner under Sections 143, 341, 323, 332 I.P.C., Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 and Section 6/11 of the United Provinces Special Powers Act. Court took a holistic view and was of the considered view that the offences alleged do not involve any offence of moral turpitude. D. In the instant case the opposite party no.4 was suffering from intellectual disability. Petitioner, a close relative (Nephew) of opposite party no.4, looking into the pathetic condition of the opposite party no.4, decided to take responsibility of the opposite party no.4, for which other family members had no objection. Petitioner moved an application before the Board u/s 14 of the MH Act, 2017, seeking his nomination as a representative/ prabandhak to take care of the opposite party no.4 and her property. Mansik Swasthya Punarvilokan Board rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner had a criminal history of two cases. Held : A relative as defined under Section 2(za) of the MH Act, 2017 means any person related to the person with mental illness by blood, marriage or adoption. Petitioner was a close relative of opposite party no.4 being her nephew and there was 'No Objection' from other relatives to his nomination as her representative and even the concerned Tehsildar has reported that opposite party no.4 is under the care of the petitioner. Court exercising parens patriae jurisdiction appointed the petitioner as the nominated representative of opposite party no.4, to take all decisions in respect of the affairs of the opposite party no.4 including her medical treatment, healthcare, daily living, financial affairs, to deal with all the movable and immovable assets of the opposite party no.4, including the family pension however, Court restrained him from the transfer of immovable assets, without the prior approval and consent of the 'Mansik Swasthya Punarvilokan Board'. (Para 13) Allowed. (E-5)
Title: Saurabh Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Rajan Roy,Om Prakash Shukla
English hearing
WRIC/4465/2025 Judgment/Order Date: 09-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1473
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Civil Law-Constitution of India,1950- Article 226-Right to Information Act,2005-Section 19(8)-The petitioner filed an RTI application seeking information from the Gram Panchayat, Jabrauli-Despite filing the application, a first appeal, and a second appeal, the requested information was never provided-The State Information Commission imposed a penalty of Rs. 25000/- on the Public Information Officer and recommended departmental action but failed to ensure that the information was actually furnished to the petitioner- The court observed that the core objective of the Act,2005 is to provide information to the citizen-It held that the State Information Commission has wide powers under section 19(8) of the Act, including the authority to direct the PIO to furnish the requested information-The court criticized the Commission for passing the order in a mechanical manner and failing to fulfill its statutory duties-Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Commission with directions to take concrete steps to obtain and provide the requested information to the petitioner. (Para 1 to 20) The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)
Title: Rajjan Vs. State Information Commission U.P. Lko & Anr.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Attau Rahman Masoodi,Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
English hearing
WRIC/3795 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 23-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1464
HEADNOTE hearing
Constitution of India, Article 226 - Pre- conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, Sections 17, 20, 22, 23, 30 - Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 12 - Search, Seizure, Suspension, and Cancellation of Registration - Petitioners challenged the orders dated 26.03.2025 (Appellate Authority), 13.10.2023 (cancellation of registration), and 12.05.2023 (suspension of registration) of their ultrasound centre, alleging non-compliance with the PCPNDT Act. The inspection on 01.05.2023, authorized by the SDM, led to seizure and sealing without the District Magistrate's recorded satisfaction or proper delegation, violating Section 30. No show cause notice was issued before cancellation, and the Advisory Committee's report lacked a recommendation for suspension/cancellation, contravening Sections 17(4) and 20(2). The seizure memo was allegedly fabricated and antedated, with no independent witnesses, violating Rule 12 and Section 100 Cr.P.C. Respondents defended the SDM's authority to delegate and the public interest basis for suspension under Section 20(3). The court held that the search lacked a recorded "reason to believe" by the Appropriate Authority, rendering it illegal, per Ravinder Kumar vs. St. of Haryana. The suspension order lacked evidence of public interest, and the cancellation order was void for absence of a show cause notice and Advisory Committee recommendation. No material showed violations under Sections 22 or 23. All impugned orders were quashed, and the writ petition was allowed. (Paras 12-15) Writ petition allowed.
Title: Alpha Diagnostic Centre & Ors. Vs. State Appropriate Authority. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Pankaj Bhatia
English hearing
WRIA/25278/2014 Judgment/Order Date: 17-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1457
HEADNOTE hearing
Civil Law- U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 - Appointment of Assistant Teacher (Urdu) - Adib-E-Kamil qualification from Jamia Urdu, Aligarh - Petitioner passed intermediate exam in the year 1995. He got admission in Jamia Urdu, Aligarh to pursue Adib-E-Kamil in July, 1995, its exam was conducted in November, 1995 i.e. within 5 months and result was declared in July, 1996. Petitioner passed Moallim-E-Urdu examination held in February, 1997. Appointments were cancelled on the ground that Jamia Urdu was not a recognized institution and certificates were obtained in less than prescribed duration. Held : Petitioner has passed two courses (Adib-E-Kamil and Moallim-E-Urdu) between July, 1996 and February, 1997 i.e. in a very short period of 8 months i.e. though duration of both courses was 1 year. Petitioner has not completed his studies of one year for Adib-E-Kamil and passed two courses within 8 months despite both courses were of one year. Aforesaid facts establish that Jamia Urdu, Aligarh was distributing degrees without proper classes. Petitioner has no right for appointment being ineligible. Writ petition dismissed. (Para 11, 12, 13, 14, 15) Dismissed. (E-5)
Title: Azahar Ali Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
English hearing
WRIA/19427 /2023 Judgment/Order Date: 17-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1438
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Service Law - Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920 - Sections 19(3) & 22 - Statute of University - St. 2(1) - Post of Vice- Chancellor - Appointment - Short-listing and recommendation of candidates by Executive Council - Principle of election - Applicability - How far merit can be taken into consideration - Held, the members of executive council were expected to choose five best candidates out of those available for their recommendation to the University Court. Such shortlisting is by cast of votes - The strict principles of election are not applicable in the facts of the present case as recommendation is expected to be based upon the merits of the candidate. (Para 46) B. Service Law - Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920 - Section 19 - Statute of University - St. 2(1) - Post of Vice- Chancellor - Appointment - Visitor's power - Scope - Nature of process - whether election or selection - Held, the Visitor is not bound by the recommendation made by the Executive Council and the University Court and has the discretion under Statute 2, not to approve any of the persons recommended by the Court and call for fresh recommendation - The Visitor has to consider appointing the Vice-Chancellor from the panel of three persons recommended by the Court, from a panel of five persons recommended by the Executive Council. The appointment of Vice-Chancellor, therefore, cannot be said to be by way of election. (Para 47 and 48) C. Service Law - Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920 - Post of Vice-Chancellor - Selection - Doctrine of bias - Applicability - Held, appointment on the post of Vice- Chancellor was based on selection and not election. Once that be so, the defence of respondents/St. that concept of bias would not be attracted cannot be accepted - As appointment based on selection is concerned, the concept of bias would clearly be applicable. (Para 61 and 62) D. Service Law - Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920 - Post of Vice-Chancellor - Selection - Participation of husband Prof. Gulrej in the proceeding of Executive Council, how far vitiate the selection of wife for the post of Vice-Chancellor - Held, chairing and participation of Professor Gulrez in the process of recommendation is improper - Held further, though, Prof. Gulrez Ahmad ought not to have presided and participated in the meeting of Executive Council and the University Court, yet, considering the nature of appointment process and the limited recommendatory role of Executive Council and University Court in making of appointment of Vice-Chancellor, we are of the considered view that participation of Prof. Gulrez Ahmad in such proceedings has not vitiated the selection proceedings - High Court issued a directive to the University to resolve, henceforth, not to allow any spouse or close family member to preside and participate any crucial meeting concerning his/her close relative. (Para 74, 75 and 88) Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
Title: Prof. (Dr.) Mujahid Beg Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Ashwani Kumar Mishra,Donadi Ramesh
English hearing
WRIA/11589/2023 Judgment/Order Date: 27-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1424
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Service Law - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Disciplinary proceeding - Scope of interference - How far High Court sit in appeal over finding of disciplinary authority - Held, the Court can interfere if the opinion given on the material is perverse, based on irrelevant evidence or ignoring material evidence. We can also interfere if there is a violation of the principles of natural justice, leading to prejudice to the petitioner. It is also open to this Court to see if the procedure, that was adopted, was fair, just and reasonable, and particularly, one conforming to the fundamentals of the standard procedural requirements to hold a disciplinary inquiry. (Para 21) B. Service Law - Disciplinary proceeding - Burden of proof, on whom lie - Held, burden to prove the charge(s) brought against the employee is on the Establishment or the Management, as the Bank choose to call themselves here. If the employee fails to produce any evidence in his defence, that would not lead to proof of the charge, the burden whereof rests on the shoulders of the Establishment. (Para 22) C. Service Law - Disciplinary proceeding - Punishment - Compulsory retirement - Charge of misconduct was leveled - No witness cited as Ist and IInd witness were called in preliminary enquiry - Effect - Officers of the Bank, who had done the preliminary inquiry, and were not present on the spot, were produced - Relevancy - Held, reliance placed on the evidence of these two witnesses to find an affirmation of facts constituting the charge is, truly speaking, reliance placed on irrelevant evidence or material, which should not have been considered during the departmental inquiry - The said evidence is certainly not relevant to prove the charge against the petitioner - Upon this kind of irrelevant material, the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority and the Reviewing Authority could never have found the petitioner guilty. (Para 25, 28 and 31) Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
Title: Prithvi Raj Singh Vs. The Chief General Manager (H.R.), Union Bank of India, Central office, Mumbai
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: J.J. Munir
English hearing
SPLA/161 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 02-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1422
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Service Law - Model Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1998 - Rules 5(3), 18 (1) & (2) - Disciplinary proceeding - Suspension - Misconduct - Allegations regarding acquisition of the property made in the chargesheet have not been denied - Effect - Possessing immovable property disproportionate to source of income, whether amount to misconduct - Held, the immovable properties possessed by an employee working in the Corporation disproportionate to the known source of income certainly amounts to a misconduct in view of the definition clause provided under Rule 5(3) - Division Bench found no illegality in the Judgment of Single Judge dismissing writ against suspension. (Para 8, 9 and 11) Appeal dismissed. (E-1)
Title: Rajvir Singh Vs. U.P.Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Attau Rahman Masoodi,Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
English hearing
FAPL/1116 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 27-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1419
HEADNOTE hearing
Civil Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498A & 326B - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Section ¾ - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 27 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 125 - Appeal challenged order by which appellant directed to pay amount as stree dhan - Earlier, respondent got maintenance order - Appellant paid Rs. 6 lakhs and tendered Rs. 1 lakh via demand draft - Impugned judgment shows photocopies of jewellery receipts as secondary evidence without stating reasons for their admissibility - Respondent alleged that appellant forcibly snatched her jewellery, assaulted her, but in FIR, allegation was of conspiracy involving seven accused, including appellant - In cross-examination, respondent admitted appellant was not present during incident, ignored by trial court - Trial court concluded appellant did not dispute receipts and admitted price of jewellery mentioned in receipts - However, receipts being photocopies, respondent claims receipts related to jewellery gifted to her as stree dhan - Appellant, having no knowledge of these transactions, cannot deemed to have admitted them - Document must be proved by its maker or witness to its making - Mere absence of objection does not establish appellant's possession of stree dhan jewellery - Proof of possession needed to be established - Return of stree dhan determined at trial within proceedings under Act, not independently through application under Section 27. (Para 2, 6, 8) Appeal allowed. (E-13)
Title: Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs. Priti Gupta
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Arindam Sinha,Avnish Saxena
English hearing
CRLP/4503 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 26-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1400
HEADNOTE hearing
Criminal Law - Constitution of India,1950 - Article - 226, - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) - Sections 311, 313 & 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) -Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 467, 468 & 471 - Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) - Section 448 - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) - Sections 3, 4 & 59(2)(c) - India Evidence Act, 1872- Sections 16, 145 & 161 - Writ Petition - challenging the impugned rejection order of transfer application moved under Section 448 of BNSS - Petitioner, formerly serving as Managing Director of LACFEDD, convicted and sentenced in corruption case - Appeal preferred - Bail granted - Enforcement Directorate initiated complaint proceedings under the PMLA - Petitioner filed transfer application u/s 448 BNSS, alleging bias and misconduct by the presiding officer of the trial court - Application rejected - Multiple applications filed u/s 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning of witnesses - dismissed as improper and dilatory - Applications under Section 59(2)(c) of PMLA and Sections 16 & 145 of Evidence Act - rejected on merits, judicial orders found valid and free from legal infirmity - No prejudice shown - Alternative remedies available and availed - Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. filed before High Court - pending adjudication - Contempt proceedings initiated by petitioner for willful disobedience of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme court - pending - Present writ petition, filed challenging rejection of transfer application u/s 448 BNSS - Petitioner alleged demand of Rs. 1 crore bribe by trial court's presiding officer - Court below noted - (i) complaint lacked substance, no action warranted, (ii) repeated applications, aimed at stalling proceedings, (iii) conduct of petitioner and counsel found intended to mount pressure on the court so that they can prolong the trial for they used loud noises in the court room - Court upheld, the integrity of trial process, affirmed validity of impugned orders with a finding that learned session court has not committed any illegality in passing impugned order - Transfer application held to be filed on false and imaginary allegations - accordingly. (Para - 10, 11, 20, 21, 22) Writ petition is dismissed. (E-11) Writ Petition - Dismissed.
Title: Brahma Prakash Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Subhash Vidyarthi
English hearing
BAIL/750 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 26-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1394
HEADNOTE hearing
Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376 & 323 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act , 2012 - Section 3/4 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 161 & 182 - FIR was instituted by informant/victim that she was 15 years old, gone to ease herself out , whereby she was caught hold off by applicant along with one another unknown person, beaten up and raped by him, they ran away from place of occurrence - Considering overall facts and circumstances, including delay in lodging FIR, presence of two contradictory forensic reports, unexplained delay in sending DNA sample for analysis despite recovery of clothes over two years ago, and lack of medical evidence supporting prosecution's version, along with fact that closure report was earlier submitted by Investigating Officer, without expressing any opinion on merits, applicant made out case for bail - Accordingly, bail application allowed. (Para 5, 39) Application allowed. (E-13)
Title: Vijay Kumar @ Krishna Vs. State of U.P & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Krishan Pahal
English hearing
WRIA/18956 /2022 Judgment/Order Date: 19-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1371
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Service Law - UP Police Regulations - Reg. 396 - Village Police/Gram Prahari - Minimum wages as per the Police personnel claimed - Entitlement - Held, a Village Policeman is free to undertake any kind of business, trade or occupation and earn his livelihood out of it; and, still, he can very well discharge his duties as a Village Policeman. It is in this context that the honourarium, being paid to the Village Policeman or Gram Prahari, is to be judged on the test of reasonableness. We do not think that the Gram Prahari or Village Policemen are in any way subjected to any kind of bondage or forced labour, taking advantage of their position, emanating from the lack of employment opportunities - The petitioners are not entitled to a mandamus, ordering the St. Government to revise and enhance their honourarium or pay, by whatever name called, to bring it at par with the minimum pay scale earned by a Policeman. (Para 53 and 57) B. Constitution of India,1950 - Article 14 - Reasonable classification - Remuneration of Rs. 2500/- per month was being paid to Village Police - Constitutional validity on the touchstone of reasonableness was challenged - Held, this is not a whole time employment done by the incumbent as his source of livelihood - The remuneration of Rs. 2500/- per month in the present day may be far on the lower side, does not make it arbitrary, unreasonable or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. (Para 53) Writ petition disposed of. (E-1)
Title: Lavkush Tiwari & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: J.J. Munir
English hearing
WRIA/11837/2020 Judgment/Order Date: 20-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1351
HEADNOTE hearing
Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Judicial Review of Answer Key provided by the Expert Committee - Whether court should interfere with the evaluation process of the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination (ATRE) 2018, specifically regarding objections to the answer key, unevaluated answers, cuttings/overwriting, omission of units, and discrepancies in awarding marks? Held: Law is well settled that the onus is on the candidate to not only demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect but also that it is a glaring mistake which is totally apparent and no inferential process or reasoning is required to show that the key answer is wrong. Constitutional courts must exercise great restraint in such matters and should be reluctant to entertain a plea challenging the correctness of the key answers. The court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate-it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics. The court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption, and in the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate. (Para 12) Dismissed. (E-5)
Title: Prashant Rai Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
English hearing
WRIA/2717 /2004 Judgment/Order Date: 14-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1324
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Service Law - UP Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rules 3 & 7 - Disciplinary proceeding - Punishment - Censure - Principle of natural justice - Application - Allegation of submitting incorrect report was made - However, the respondent initiated proceeding after 17 years - No assertion in the Inquiry Report as to any date was fixed by Inquiry Officer, when the petitioner was called for personal hearing - Inquiry Officer has failed to examine any witness to prove photocopy of the documents - Effect - Held, strict adherence to the procedure prescribed under Rule 7 of Rules, 1999 is mandatory for imposing major penalty. The procedure as prescribed under Rule 7 is nothing but incorporation of principles of natural justice - Held further, the inquiry proceedings are vitiated for non- observance of procedure as prescribed under Rule 7 of Rules, 1999 as well as being in violation of principles of natural justice. (Para 20 and 57) B. Service Law - UP Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rules 9 - Disciplinary proceeding - Punishment - Censure - Principle of natural justice - Non consideration of the representation - Effect - How can non- application of mind be reflected - Held, giving of reason for a decision is one of the fundamentals of good administration. It constitutes a safeguard against arbitrariness on the part of the decision- maker - Application of mind is only reflected by the reasons given in the judgment. An order supported by reasons ensures that the adjudicatory authority/court genuinely addressed itself to the arguments and evidence advanced at the time of the hearing - Non- consideration of representation of the petitioner against the findings of the Inquiry Officer is in violation of sub-Rule 4 of Rule 9 of Rules, 1999 as well as also in violation of principles of natural justice. (Para 37, 39 and 57) Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
Title: Jawahar Lal Gupta Vs. State of U.P.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Manish Kumar Nigam
English hearing
A482/16456 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 07-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1309
HEADNOTE hearing
Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 173, 190, 190(1)(1), 190(1)(b), 190(1)(b), 191(1)(c), 200, 203, 204, 207, 209, 260 & 482 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 120-B, 147, 323, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, 447, 504 & 506 - Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984- Sections 3 & 4- Applications u/s 482 Cr.P.C. - challenge to impugned summoning orders - Court while adjudicating the batch of petitions, expressed grave concern over the - (i) the mechanical issuance of summoning orders by trial courts, often using printed proforma formats without applying judicial mind or assigning reasons - such practice not only undermines judicial discipline but also burdens the system with avoidable litigation and depriving accused persons of clarity regarding allegations prior to the procedural stage under Section 207 Cr.P.C. - (ii) furthermore, although the statutory remedy of discharge under the Cr.P.C. remains available before the trial court, litigants increasingly bypass this route, approaching the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of cognizance orders and seeking "no coercive action" - such approach, held to be legally untenable and procedurally premature - Court reiterates that "taking cognizance" does not necessitate a formal or reasoned order, but requires the Magistrate to apply judicial mind to the alleged commission of offence with intent to proceed under law - (iii) court also finds that, systemic lapses attributed to insufficient judicial training, legacy practices, excessive dependence on clerical staff, and a backlog-centric culture that compromises judicial scrutiny - Held that, issuance of summoning orders through pre-typed formats and rubber-stamped templates is impermissible and must be discontinued forthwith - directions issued for institutional reforms including sustained judicial training, enhanced supervisory oversight, and legal sensitization of court staff - Judicial Training and Research Institute and relevant authorities directed to circulate the judgment for compliance and future reference - finding no material irregularity in the impugned summoning orders, all applications dismissed - however, liberty granted to the applicants to reapply post compliance with Section 207 Cr.P.C. (Para - 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41) Applications Dismissed. (E-11)
Title: Niraj @ Banti Shahi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Vinod Diwakar
English hearing
CRLA/1820 /2015 Judgment/Order Date: 22-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1249
HEADNOTE hearing
Benefit of doubt-incident had taken place in the dark hours of night-no eye witness- nobody was named in the FIR- the father and brother of the deceased, -who are said to have taken the victim to hospital -not been produced by the prosecution-relevant witnesses, whose testimony appears to be material to corroborate the prosecution story- if not produced, then adverse inference may be drawn against the prosecution -benefit of doubt extended. Appeal allowed. (E-9)
Title: Pankaj Vs. State of U.P.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Rajiv Gupta,Harvir Singh
English hearing
CRLA/1557 /2020 Judgment/Order Date: 30-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1224
HEADNOTE hearing
(A) Criminal Law - Conviction on Circumstantial Evidence - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 364, 302/34 & 201 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 27 & 65-B - Principles governing conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence reiterated - The circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established - that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused - should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence - Chain of circumstances incomplete, conviction cannot be sustained - Circumstantial evidence must be so complete as to exclude every hypothesis other than that of guilt of the accused - Each link unless connected together form a chain may suggest suspicion but the same in itself cannot take place of proof and will not be sufficient to convict the accused. (Para 44, 46 to 49, 68 to 72) (B) Criminal Law - Admissibility of Electronic Records - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 65-B - A certificate under Section 65-B(4) is a condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way of electronic record - oral evidence in place of certificate cannot suffice - C.C.T.V. footage cannot be admitted in evidence unless accompanied by a certificate under Section 65-B - Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act clearly states that secondary evidence is admissible only if led in the manner stated and not otherwise - To hold otherwise would render Section 65-B(4) otiose. (Para 40 to 42, 49, 71) Accused appellants were alleged to have kidnapped and murdered a child (aged 5 years) - FIR initially lodged against unknown persons under Section 364 IPC - based on missing complaint - names of accused surfaced subsequently through supplementary application - Recovery of dead body alleged on the basis of accused's disclosure - prosecution case based entirely on circumstantial evidence including last seen and CCTV footage - without required certification and without examining relevant witnesses - Trial court convicted the appellants using circumstantial evidence. (Para 2-16, 39, 43) HELD: - Prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the offence. Links in the chain of circumstances conspicuously missing. Investigation in the present matter is not up-to-the mark. No credible, legal, admissible, or reliable evidence on record to inculpate the appellants. Conviction set aside. Accused-appellants to be released forthwith unless required in any other case. (Para 71, 72, 74, 75) Appeals allowed. (E-7)
Title: Naushad Vs. State of U.P.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Rajiv Gupta,Samit Gopal
English hearing
CRLA/370 /1991 Judgment/Order Date: 30-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1203
HEADNOTE hearing
(A) Criminal Law - Murder and Rape based on Circumstantial Evidence - Admissibility of extra-judicial confession and recovery without proper disclosure under Section 27 Evidence Act - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 376 & 201 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27 - Recovery of weapon and extra-judicial confession must be proven strictly through admissible and cogent evidence - Extra-judicial confession alone cannot justify conviction in absence of corroboration - Recovery without proper disclosure statement fails the test of Section 27 and cannot alone form basis of conviction - Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt in circumstantial evidence cases - Conviction cannot be sustained where the prosecution fails to establish a complete chain of circumstances and the evidence presented consists of doubtful recoveries and unreliable extra-judicial confessions.(Para - 60,61,75) Two minor girls went missing on 17.05.1987 - their decomposed bodies were recovered on 21.05.1987 - appellants arrested thereafter and allegedly confessed and led to recovery of weapons and belongings of deceased - accused allegedly confessed before villagers and led to recovery of 'daratis' and an earring - conviction based on extra-judicial confession and recoveries - Medical opinion could not ascertain cause of death; no direct evidence or eyewitnesses. (Para - 3 to 13, 41 to 42) HELD: - Conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained on uncorroborated extra-judicial confession and inadmissible recoveries. Prosecution failed to establish complete chain of circumstances to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Conviction and sentence set aside. (Para - 41, 50 to 52, 54 to 60,78) Appeal allowed. (E-7)
Title: Taley Hasan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Saumitra Dayal Singh,Sandeep Jain
English hearing
CRLP/12507 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 30-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1186
HEADNOTE hearing
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 50, 167 & 304 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120-B, 384, 420, 467, 468 & 471 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1961 - Sections 7 & 12 - Writ Petition - assailing the arrest and to declare illegal all the successive remand orders - ECIR - FIR - lodged by ACB - earlier petitioner was arrested along with other co-accused in Chhattisgarh by ACB for offenses under IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, for which he was granted bail - however, on same day after his release, he was re-arrested by the UP Police at Raipur, within 20 minutes after his bail release - Transit remand - the Special Judge, Meerut remanded him to judicial custody, despite his objections citing violations of Articles 19(1), 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 of Cr.P.C. - His arrest memo and intimation to his son were duly made on the same day - Court finds that, - the arrest memo lacked a column for stating reasons, and the petitioner was not informed of his right to legal aid, which is protected under Articles 21, 22(1), 39A of the Constitution and Section 304 Cr.P.C. - held, Right to access legal aid is a valuable right of an accused and he must be informed of that right before his arrest - therefore, due to non-compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. as the grounds of arrest were never communicated in writing, nor was the petitioner given an opportunity to defend his custodial remand, the arrest and all subsequent remand orders were quashed - however, the charge-sheet remains unaffected and proceedings may continue as per law - direction issued, for circulation of the judgment by the Director General of Police to all police personnel in U.P. to prevent future procedural lapses. (Para - 16, 17, 18, 19) Writ petition stands allowed. (E-11) Result: - Writ Petition - Allowed.
Title: Anwar Dhebar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Siddhartha Varma,Madan Pal Singh
English hearing
ARPLD/9 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 07-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1165
HEADNOTE hearing
(A) Civil Law - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 34, 34(3), 37 & 43 - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Sections 13, 13(1A) & 29(2) - Limitation Act,1963 - Sections 5 & 12 - Article 116, 117 - Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act r/w Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - challenging the judgment passed by the Commercial Court - Arbitration Case - Arbitral Award - Application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, to set aside the Arbitral Award - dismissed on the ground of limitation - current appeal - Practice and Procedure - the Court observed that - before considering the delay condonation application, strongly deprecated the growing practice of impleading Civil Courts, Tribunals, or Arbitrators as party-respondents in appeals or writs challenging their judicial orders - such adjudicating bodies, acting in a judicial capacity, are immune from personal prosecution unless specific and serious allegations of misconduct are made - held - neither the Commercial Court nor the Arbitrator in the present case had any personal stake or allegations against them, and thus directed their removal from the memo of parties - to uphold judicial independence and procedural propriety, the Court issued a binding practice direction - litigants must not implead Courts, Tribunals, or Arbitrators in appeals under Sections 34 or 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, unless there are substantiated claims of misfeasance or misconduct. (Para - 4, 8, 9) (B) Civil Law - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 34, 34(3), 37 & 43 - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Sections 13, 13(1A) & 29(2) - Limitation Act,1963 - Sections 5 & 12 - Article 116, 117 - Appeal u/s Section 37 of the Arbitration r/w Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act - challenge to the impugned Commercial Court's order of dismissal of an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act - Contract - disputes arose over unpaid bills and compensation - Arbitration proceedings - Arbitral Award - Application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, to set aside the Arbitral Award - dismissed on the ground of limitation - present appeal - law of Limitation - court finds that, appeal was initially filed beyond the statutory 60-day period prescribed u/s 13(1A), delayed by 77 days and subsequently, refiled with a total delay of 93 days - appellant sought condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act citing administrative approvals, legal consultations, and document collation - Court held such reasons insufficient, attributing the delay to bureaucratic inefficiency and lack of diligence - reiterated that the scope of "sufficient cause" under Section 5 is not elastic enough to accommodate prolonged delays in commercial litigation, especially in light of the legislative mandate for expeditious resolution - consequently, delay condonation application rejected and the Appeal is dismissed as time- barred. (Para - 28, 29, 30, 31, 32) Application Dismissed. (E-11)
Title: The Project Director, Uphsdp, Lko. & Ors. Vs. Commercial Court No. 1 Lko. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Rajan Roy,Om Prakash Shukla
English hearing
A227/612 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 27-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1115
HEADNOTE hearing
Civil Law - Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Sections 7, 8, 9, 21 & 23 - U.P. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2014 - Rules 14, 15, 16, 21 & 23 - Order of eviction of children, relatives, or others from senior citizen's or parent's property by Maintenance Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal - Power of - Validity - Maintenance Tribunal which is manned by officer not below rank of Sub Divisional Officer or Appellate Tribunal which is manned by officer not below rank of District Magistrate, cannot act beyond powers given in Chapter II of 2007 Act - Since neither Act, 2007 nor Rules, 2014 expressly give them eviction powers, they cannot assume such powers or use inherent powers like civil courts have under Section 151 CPC - Thus, while deciding application before it in terms of Section 5 of Act, 2007, they cannot pass eviction orders under Sections 7, 8 or 9 of Act, 2007 - Considering overall scheme of Act, Section 21, 23 and Supreme Court ruling in Urmila Dixit (infra), Maintenance Tribunal / Appellate Tribunal can, after declaring a transfer void, pass consequential orders for possession in favour of senior citizen, including evicting an undesirable person from senior citizen's property - Matter referred to concerned Court for decision on merits. (Para 2, 98, 99, 137) Petition pending. (E-13)
Title: Onkar Nath Gaur & Anr. Vs. D.M./President Appellate Tribunal Lko. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Attau Rahman Masoodi,Jaspreet Singh,Subhash Vidyarthi
English hearing
WRIC/2373 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 19-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1094
HEADNOTE hearing
Constitution of India, Article 226 - Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - Sections 4, 16, 17, 17A, 17B, 25(3) - Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 - Rule 85(3) - Functus Officio and Review Jurisdiction - Petitioner challenged the order dated 04.10.2023, which allowed a review application and suspended the appellate order dated 11.08.2023, reviving petitioner's drug license (Form 25 and Form 28) except for drugs using Propylene Glycol, due to substandard DOK-1 Max Syrup linked to child deaths in Uzbekistan. Petitioner argued the Appellate Authority lacked jurisdiction to review its order absent statutory provisions, became functus officio post-appeal, and passed the review order ex parte, violating Section 25(3) of the Act. Respondents contended the review was justified due to public interest, substandard drugs containing excess Diethylene Glycol (DEG) and Ethylene Glycol (EG), and misrepresentation of Uzbekistan court orders, citing inherent powers to correct fraud, per Indian Bank vs. Satyam Fibres. The court held that the Appellate Authority, having decided the appeal, became functus officio under Rule 85(3), and no statutory review power existed under the Act or Rules. No fraud, forgery, or misrepresentation was established, as all facts, including Uzbekistan court orders and drug deficiencies, were known during the appeal, per Naresh Kumar vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) and Patel Narshi Thakershi vs. Pradyuman Singhji. The review order, passed ex parte on the same day as the application, lacked new evidence or legal basis. Writ petition allowed, review order quashed. (Paras 15-33) Writ petition allowed.
Title: Ms Marion Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Dinesh Pathak
English hearing
WRIA/1000115/2014 Judgment/Order Date: 07-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1085
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Tenancy Law - UP Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent &Eviction) Act, 1972 - Section 30 (1) - Scope of power - Deposit of rent - No adjudication on relationship of landlord and tenant, how far vitiate the impugned order - Held, S. 30 itself does not confer any adjudictory powers upon the Munsif for deciding the relationship of landlord and tenant, otherwise the use of word 'claiming to be tenant' would be of no purpose - No power of adjudication have been granted to the Munsif by virtue of S. 30 of the Act and even if the deposit is made by a person claiming himself to be a tenant, and is actually not a tenant, the benefit of deposit u/s 30 would clearly not be available to him in suitable proceedings initiated by the landlord and contested by the tenant/ person in occupation and not a tenant. (Para 11 and 13) Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
Title: Puran Singh Vs. District Judge Lucknow & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Pankaj Bhatia
English hearing
SPLA/228 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 02-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1063
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Service Law - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Writ - Principle of res judicata - Applicability - Benefit of conversion from Contributory Provident Fund Scheme to Pension Scheme claimed - Entitlement - Issue of entitlement was decided in V. P. Singh's case between the parties - Effect - Change made in the law, how far can upset the binding nature of decision - Held, an adjudication, inter-se between the parties, in respect of a cause once attaches finality, the same cannot be revived - A previous adjudication inter-se between the parties in respect of the same lis remains operative and even an erroneous judgment operates as res judicata, inter-se, between the parties and that a subsequent change in law would not invalidate such previous adjudication - The appellants would not be entitled to any relief even though the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Shashi Kiran supports their claim. (Para 38, 48 and 50) B. Service Law - Central University Retirement Benefit Rules, 1967 - Pension Scheme - Entitlement - Office Memorandum dated 1.5.1987 - It's applicability to the appellant, appointed on 9.7.1990 and not in employment of BHU on 1.1.1986 - Objection was made against inclusion in the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme - Effect - Held, by virtue of Office Memorandum dated 1.5.1987, all those, who came in employment after 1.1.1986, were covered under the Pension Scheme. For such employees, there was no option available to be included in the CPF Scheme. (Para 54 and 57) Special Appeal no. 309 of 2025 allowed and rest Appeal dismissed. (E-1)
Title: Prof. Harish Chandra Chaudhary & Ors. Vs. The Union of India & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Ashwani Kumar Mishra,Praveen Kumar Giri
English hearing
WRIA/27328 /2018 Judgment/Order Date: 01-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1080
HEADNOTE hearing
Service Law - Assistant Teacher in Basic Schools - Equivalence of Qualification - IAF Education Certificate vis-à -vis Intermediate - Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009 - Whether I.A.F. Education Test certificate is equivalent to Intermediate examination for appointment as Assistant Teacher in Basic Schools. Held : IAF Education Certificate is equivalent to Intermediate, in view of Circular dated 28.4.1992 issued by Secretary, State of U.P.; Circular issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development dated 23.8.2017, and judgment of Ram Lal Srivastava Vs State Of U.P. And Others, Neutral Citation No. 2019: AHC:205812 (Para 18) (E-5)
Title: Banna Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
English hearing
A482/22859 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 12-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1049
HEADNOTE hearing
Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 482, 451, 457, 458 & 459 - United Provinces Excise Act, 1910 - Sections 60, 63, 72 & 73 - U.P. Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1997 - Sections 22,2 & 158 - U.P. Motor Taxation Rules, 1998 - Rule 9(a), 19-A, - UP Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 - Rules 203, 203-A - UP Police Act. - Section 23 & 29 - U.P. Cow Slaughter Act, 1945 - Section - 5-A(7) - U.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2021 - Rule 72(6)- Application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. - FIR - registered on a complaint of an Excise Inspector - raid & seizure - of illicit liquor, cash, and a vehicle under the U.P. Excise Act - owner of vehicle moved an application for release - rejected, due to the pending trial - Revision Petition - rejected - hence present application - court finds that, this incident highlights a broader systemic issue in U.P., where over 1,13,000 vehicles remain impounded due to inconsistent judicial practices, lack of centralized tracking, and bureaucratic delays - These inefficiencies not only burden courts and departments but also risk criminal misuse and economic loss - To address this, the Court initiated a comprehensive reform process, directing the formation of a high-level Coordination Committee to develop structured guidelines for timely disposal of seized vehicles - Recommendations include creating a centralized digital dashboard linked with CCTNS, establishing district-level vehicle yards with QR tracking, prioritizing auctions of unclaimed vehicles, and enforcing accountability among officials - The Court emphasized that vehicles, as national assets, must not be allowed to deteriorate due to procedural inertia and called for a pragmatic, development-oriented judicial approach that balances statutory compliance with economic utility and property rights - application disposed of with direction to the Registrar (Compliance) to transmit this to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of UP for its effective compliance within a period of Six months. (Para 28, 30, 32, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45) Application Disposed of. (E-11)
Title: Birender Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Vinod Diwakar
English hearing
A482/20422 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 12-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1039
HEADNOTE hearing
Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 107, 108, 109, 110 & 482 - U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - Sections 2, 2- B(1), 3, 12 & 14 - U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention), Rules, 2021 - Rule 5, 5(3)(a), 8(3), 10(1), 16(1), 16(2), 17(2), 20, 20(3), 20(4), 22(2), 26(1), 36 & 64 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 94, 126, 127, 128, 129 & 193- Application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. - challenging the entire proceedings under the Gangsters Act - initiated solely on the basis of a single 'FIR' - alleging illegal mining and transportation using fake documents, which purportedly caused public fear and revenue loss - applicants claimed false implication and highlighted their impoverished status, prompting the Court to scrutinize procedural lapses, including mechanical approval of the gang chart without proper verification - The Court directed the SP to submit all materials justifying the Act's invocation and ordered a financial inquiry by the SDM, which revealed minimal assets and bank activity among the accused - Dissatisfied with the rationale provided by the approving officers, the Court mandated their virtual appearance and emphasized the need for training and compliance with Rule 5(3)(a) of the 2021 Rules - A re-investigation was ordered, and departmental action was recommended against negligent officers, leading to the exoneration of all accused and filing of a closure report - To prevent future misuse, the Court further directed consolidation of conflicting checklists from the Home Department and Directorate of Prosecution, mandated pre-submission review of charge sheets by prosecution officers, empowered courts to report non-compliance - accordingly, application is disposed of with directions to circulate a fresh circular and compliance report to ensure uniform implementation across U.P. (Para - 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21) Application Disposed of. (E-11)
Title: Vinay Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Vinod Diwakar
English hearing
A482/5057 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 01-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1017
HEADNOTE hearing
No allegation against the applicant that he had generated or acquired any proceeds of crime- only allegation is that he has assisted in generation of money -it is only when money is generated as a result of such acts that PMLA steps in as soon as proceeds of crime-prima facie no offence made out. Application allowed. (E-9)
Title: Vishnu Prabhakar Vs. Union of India
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Subhash Vidyarthi
English hearing
A482/3979 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 14-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1008
HEADNOTE hearing
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002-Section 3 -Offence of money laundering u/s 3 of PMLA is independent of the scheduled offence through which the proceeds of crime were generated-if numerous persons are accused of commission of the scheduled offence and one or some of them, but not all of them are exonerated / discharged or acquitted- it cannot be said that the scheduled offence has not been committed- or that the proceeds of crime have not been generated-if prosecution is going then even if a person is not named as an accused in the scheduled offence- or if he / she has been exonerated / discharged in respect of the scheduled offence-it will not create a bar against his / her prosecution under the PMLA. Application dismissed. (E-9)
Title: Neeharika Singh Vs. Directorate of Enforcement Lko.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Subhash Vidyarthi
English hearing
A482/3726 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 01-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1000
HEADNOTE hearing
Applicant is an accused in an FIR lodged by CBI- not based on any private complaint-Applicant is seeking permission to travel abroad for attending the wedding ceremony of a relative in USA and to enjoy a family pleasure trip in France-. This purpose is not an essential purpose like revalidation of a Green Card. proceedings against the applicant have been initiated by an FIR lodged by the Central Bureau of Investigation and the trial Court has charged him for commission of offences under Section 120-B read with Section 420 I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The trial pending since 2011 has now reached the stage of defence evidence. At this stage, he wants to travel abroad merely to attend the wedding ceremony of a grand-son of his father's sister, who is not his immediate family member. After attending the wedding at San Diego, California, USA, the applicant wants to have a family pleasure trip to France. 18. An accused person who has been enlarged on bail can be granted permission to travel abroad for some pressing necessity like medical Page 9 of 11 treatment, attending essential official duties and the like. An accused person who has been enlarged on bail cannot seek permission as of right to travel to another country merely for attending the marriage of a relative and having a pleasure trip to another country. Wedding of a relative in a foreign country and pleasure trip to another country are not at all essential purposes for an under-trial accused person's visit abroad. 19. Merely, because the trial Court had earlier granted permission to the applicant to travel abroad for non-essential objects on numerous, he does not get a right to travel abroad for non- essential objects this time also, when the trial has reached the stage of defence evidence. 20. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this reason has not been assigned by the trial Court and the trial Court has merely rejected the application on the ground that since the trial has reached at the stage of defence evidence, the applicant cannot be granted permission for travel abroad. 21. While exercising the inherent powers of this Court recognized by Section 528 BNSS, this Court's power is not confined to scrutiny of the reasons assigned by the trial court. Besides seeking quashing of the order passed by the trial Court, the applicant has requested this Court to pass an order granting him permission to travel abroad and in these circumstances, this Court can certainly to look into the justification of the prayer made by the applicant so as to assess whether the permission sought can be granted to the applicant. the trial Court has not committed any illegality in rejecting the application seeking permission for the applicant for his travel to the USA for attending the marriage of a relative and to France to enjoy a family pleasure trip, when the trial has reached the stage of defence evidence. The applicant does not have the right to travel to USA for attending the marriage of his relative and to France to enjoy a family pleasure trip when the trial of the case filed by CBI, in which the applicant is an accused, has reached the stage of defence evidence. The application seeking permission for the applicant's travel abroad as well as the application under Section 528 BNSS lack merits and are, accordingly, rejected. (E-9)
Title: Aditya Murti Vs. C.B.I./A.C.B. Lko.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Subhash Vidyarthi
English hearing
SAPL/167 /2023 Judgment/Order Date: 02-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 986
HEADNOTE hearing
Civil Law - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100 - Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 63 - Indian Evidence Act, 1860 - Sections 63, 68, 69, 70 & 71 - Second Appeal - preferred by the plaintiff-appellants - assailing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, whereby the appellate court reversed the decree of the trial court - Will - which was executed by the father, excluding one son among his other four sons - property dispute - Original Suit - for cancellation of a Will - Trial Court - upon framing six issues and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, arrived at the conclusion that the defendants failed to establish lawful and voluntary execution of the Will - accordingly, the suit was decreed - First Appeal - the appellate court - allowed the appeal - relying primarily on the fact of registration and selective witness testimony - while disregarding the trial court's detailed findings - Second Appeal - Court finds that - proof of Will stands on a higher degree than any other instrument - if there are any suspicious circumstances, whether raised by the other side or otherwise before the court are required to be clarified or removed by the propounder of the Will also, failing which the Will in dispute cannot be said to be valid - the eldest son had specifically alleged that the Will was procured by fraud, at a time when the testator was mentally and physically incapacitated - the trial court had duly considered these aspects and recorded cogent findings - the appellate court, however, failed to consider it and overlooked the finding of the trial court - Held - the first appellate court has allowed the appeal recording illegal and perverse findings - Consequently, the decree passed by the first appellate court is set aside - the judgment and decree of the trial court is restored - no illegality or perversity found in the trial court's findings - Accordingly, the second appeal stands allowed. (Para - 26, 34, 35) Appeal Allowed. (E-11)
Title: Ambika Prasad @ Ambika Prasad Pandey & Ors. Vs. Shyam Bihari & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Rajnish Kumar
English hearing
BAIL/3971 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 08-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 973
HEADNOTE hearing
Criminal Law - Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 109(1), 324(4), 351(3), 103(1) & 61(2) - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 180, 192 & 230 - Preliminary objection raised against maintainability of bail application, as extracts from case diary, despite investigation being incomplete, have been annexed - This suggests applicant may influenced investigation and Investigation Officer may try to protect accused - Annexing extracts of case diary become common practice and not annexing is exception - When photo copies are freely provided to persons doing Pairvi of cases, copies of extracts of case diary having been annexed in bail application would not make ground for rejection of bail application without examining merits by Court - Objection rejected - F.I.R lodged 37 hours after incident - Old enmity between parties - Registration number of Bolero vehicle which hit motorcycle remains unidentified despite examination of footage of numerous CCTV cameras and applicant not linked to it - Call records and photo from High Court photo affidavit centre shows his presence in premises of High Court which is 175 km away from place of incident - Co- accused already granted bail - Applicant entitled to be released on bail. (Para 4, 21, 23, 44) Application allowed. (E-13)
Title: Vipin Tiwari Vs. State of U.P.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Subhash Vidyarthi
English hearing
WRIC/22491/2024 Judgment/Order Date: 12-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 949
HEADNOTE hearing
(A) Family Law - Marriage Registration - Fraudulent Certificates - The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 - Uttar Pradesh Marriage Registration Rules, 2017 - Hindu Marriage Registration Rules ,1973 - Large- scale misuse of Arya Samaj marriage certificates for filing couple-protection writs - Police verification revealing forged Aadhar, PAN, educational certificates, fabricated witnesses, and underage marriages - Pattern of registering marriages in Ghaziabad/Gautam Buddha Nagar without residence nexus - Involvement/Negligence of local police and Registrar offices - Court orders institutional reforms, amendment to 2017 Rules, and interim guidelines for marriage registration - Directions for inter- departmental verification mechanism. (Para 5, 7 to 35) Petitioners, claiming to have married against family wishes - sought police protection - State disputed genuineness of Arya Samaj marriage certificate - verification revealed systemic misuse of forged certificates in similar petitions - involving underage parties and non-existent societies - prompting Court to issue state-wide remedial directions. (Para 3 to 7, 12 to14) HELD: - Article 21 guarantees right to choose life partner upon attaining majority, but such right cannot be invoked through forged or fabricated documents to circumvent statutory provisions. State bound to ensure statutory compliance, safeguard sanctity of marriage, and prevent misuse of protection writs, directed amendment of U.P. Marriage Registration Rules, 2017 within six months and issued binding interim guidelines for marriage registration. Petitions disposed with liberty to seek relief from concerned SSP after verification. (Para 13, 30 to 38) Petitions disposed of. (E-7)
Title: Shani Dev & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Vinod Diwakar
English hearing
WRIC/13636/2025 Judgment/Order Date: 02-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 944
HEADNOTE hearing
(A) Arbitration & Conciliation Law - Maintainability of a writ petition in the presence of an arbitration clause - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 7, 9, 17 & 23 - writ petition is not maintainable where an adequate and efficacious alternative remedy exists, as arbitration is an important Alternative Disputes Redressal process - court, in its writ jurisdiction, cannot entertain a matter when the parties have a valid arbitration clause, as the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a self-contained code that provides sufficient remedies, including interim protection. (Para -12,15,16) Petitioner's LPG distributorship dispute - challenged two orders passed by the respondent- Indian Oil Corporation - respondent contended that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the existence of a binding arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties. (Para -1 to 5 ) HELD: Writ petition not maintainable in view of the arbitration clause as provided under Clause 37(a) of the agreement and the availability of efficacious remedies under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the arbitrator under Section 23. No observation in the judgment should be construed as adjudication on merits and that if the petitioner approached the arbitrator, the matter should be decided expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments. (Para - 17 to 19) Petition dismissed. (E-7)
Title: Surajpur Indane Gas Sewa, Agarwal Market, District Gautam Budh Nagar Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited (M.D.) & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Prakash Padia
English hearing
WRIC/12032 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 12-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 940
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950- Article 226-Fraud upon the court- impersonation and misuse of Aadhaar Card-A writ petition is filed claiming that Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were legally wedded and facing threats and they sought police protection-On hearing date, the Petitioner no.1 appeared in person with her brother and denied filing the petition alleging impersonation and misuse of her Aadhaar card-She affirmed that she is married to one Samrat Pandey has two children and currently lives with her parents due to matrimonial discord-A show-cause notice was issued to Advocate Lallan Chaubey, named as the counsel for petitioners, who denied involvement claiming forgery of his signature-A preliminary inquiry was ordered through the Registrar General and it confirmed the petition was filed fraudulently-Both the petitioners denied having filed the petition-There is prima facie case of fraud committed to mislead the court-Directions issued to commissioner of police to conduct inquiry, use scientific and forensic methods to trace the fraud.(Para 1 to 19) The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)
Title: Rani Pandey & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Vinod Diwakar
English hearing