WRIA/7118/2022 Judgment/Order Date: 23-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 500
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Practice & Procedure - Writ Petition - Non-joinder of necessary parties - If none of the selected candidates, who are likely to be affected, are impleaded even in a representative capacity, the writ petition is not maintainable. (Para 7) B. Service Law - Reservation - Horizontal Reservation - Women candidates - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 15(3), 16(1) & 16(6) - U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Women) Act, 1993 - Section 3(3) - In the instant case, the first set of petitioners were women belonging to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS), who claimed that the 20% horizontal reservation for women should be applied independently within the EWS quota, which comprised 902 seats (10% of the total 9027 seats advertised), thereby entitling them to 181 seats (20% of 902) reserved for women under the EWS category - State admitted that 722 seats for women under the Open Category and 181 seats for women under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) were clubbed together, and a total of 903 seats were allotted to women. On this basis, the State claimed that the entire women's reservation in both categories was satisfied. However, the State could not point to any provision, order, or Government Order (G.O.) that allowed such clubbing. Held : Women's reservation must be applied independently and separately in each category. Because of this unlawful clubbing, only 34 women in the EWS quota actually benefited, instead of the 181 seats reserved for them. Court Held that the grievance raised by the first set of petitioners has merit. (Para 3, 4) Allowed. (E-5)
Title: Neha Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
English hearing
WRIA/6705 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 20-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 495
HEADNOTE hearing
Transfer - Retention Policy - Seizure Disorder - Non-speaking order - Legality. Petitioner, a CRPF Constable, challenged modified transfer order despite being under treatment for seizure disorder at Prayagraj. Retention Policy (DG CRPF Circular 27.09.2022, Clause 7) allows exceptions on genuine medical grounds. Authorities, while altering station from Manipur to Visakhapatnam, failed to consider medical documents or reasons, passing a non- speaking order. Court held that transfer being an incidence of service is ordinarily within employer's domain, yet once a retention policy exists, authorities are bound to apply their mind to medical claims under it. Diseases mentioned in the policy are illustrative, not exhaustive. "Seizure disorder" is at par or more severe than listed ailments. Non-application of mind vitiates transfer order. Matter remitted to authority to reconsider petitioner's medical case; meanwhile, impugned transfer order dated 07.05.2025 quashed.
Title: Santosh Kumar Pal Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Ajit Kumar
English hearing
WRIA/6157 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 23-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 486
HEADNOTE hearing
Service Law - Deputation - Repatriation - District Coordinators under Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan - Deputation from Basic Education Department - Nature of appointment explained - Government Order dated 26.05.2003 providing maximum deputation period of three years, extendable to five years - After expiry, repatriation mandatory - Deputationists have no indefeasible right to continue in borrowing department - Appointment not cancelled, only repatriation to parent cadre - No violation of natural justice - Fundamental duty under Article 21-A (Right to Education) requires teachers to return to teaching duties - Repatriation order upheld. Held: Deputation is temporary by nature; no vested right accrues to continue in the borrowing department. Petitioners, Assistant Teachers appointed as District Coordinators on deputation, had completed more than 4-5 years. In view of G.O. dated 26.05.2003, their repatriation to parent department is valid, justified, and not violative of natural justice. Distinction between "appointment on deputation" and "transfer on deputation" discussed. Petitioners cannot claim continuance as of right. Writ Petitions dismissed; interim orders vacated.
Title: Shashank Sachan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
English hearing
WRIA/6131 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 29-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 480
HEADNOTE hearing
Service Law - Suspension - Sexual Harassment Complaint - Prima Facie Case - Constitution of Internal Complaints Committee - Procedural Irregularities - Appeal Remedy - Validity. Held: Suspension is not a punishment but a measure to ensure free and fair inquiry - Allegations of 'body shaming' against petitioner, if proved, may constitute sexual harassment under Section 2(n) of the Act, 2013 - Internal Committee indicted petitioner; hence, prima facie case for suspension made out - Objections regarding improper constitution of Committee under Section 4 and non-compliance of Section 11 are legal/factual issues to be raised in statutory appeal under Section 18 - Court refrains from final opinion on merits - Direction issued to petitioner to prefer appeal within four weeks, to be decided by appellate authority within two months - Till then, no final disciplinary action to be taken, suspension to abide outcome of appeal, subsistence allowance to continue. Writ Petition disposed of with directions.
Title: Shailendra Kumar Rai Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Ajit Kumar
English hearing
WRIA/5819 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 20-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 478
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Service Law - UP St. District Court Service Rules, 2013 - Rules 7(2), 23(7)(i) & (ii) - Punishment - Penalty of withholding two annual increment to the accumulative effects - Disciplinary proceeding - On being disagreed on finding of inquiry officer, the disciplinary authority directed for re-enquiry on the same charges - Permissibility - Competence of disciplinary authority questioned - Held, disciplinary authority is well vested with its power to order for re- inquiry, upon recording its own satisfaction regarding disagreement with the findings returned by the inquiry officer - Re-inquiry can be ordered into the same charges as the disagreement is to be recorded by the disciplinary authority upon the findings of the inquiry officer on charges inquired into. (Para 7 and 9) B. Practice and procedure - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Writ - Maintainability - Alternative remedy - Held, petitioner has an alternative remedy of statutory appeal before the Administrative Judge against the order passed by the punishing authority as per Rule 9 - High Court left it open for the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority, if so advised. (Para 12 and 14) Writ petition disposed of. (E-1)
Title: Harishankar Vs. District Judge, Kaushambi & Anr.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Ajit Kumar
English hearing
WRIA/5698 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 30-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 472
HEADNOTE hearing
Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Right to Legal Assistance - Supply of Documents - Petitioner, a University employee, suspended and facing departmental enquiry - Denied legal assistance and photocopies of 5133 pages of relevant documents, allowed only inspection - Enquiry Committee included a retired High Court Judge - Proceedings concluded treating petitioner's tentative reply as final. Held: Denial of legal assistance when the Enquiry Officer is legally trained is violative of principles of natural justice [J.K. Aggarwal; Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay; Ramesh Chandra]. Denial of photocopies of relevant documents also unfair [Saroj Kumar Sinha]. Disciplinary proceedings revived; authorities directed to provide photocopies, permit legal assistance, and conclude proceedings before petitioner's superannuation. Writ Petition partly allowed.
Title: Dr. Amod Kumar Sachan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
English hearing
WRIA/4492 /2023 Judgment/Order Date: 05-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 427
HEADNOTE hearing
Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - IIT Kanpur Statutes, Statute 13(9)(b) - Misconduct by Professor - Allegations of disparaging remarks against a colleague belonging to SC category and convening of an unauthorized faculty meeting questioning appointment - Inquiry held, charges found proved - Board of Governors imposed penalty of withholding two increments without cumulative effect for two years and debarment from holding administrative responsibilities for three years - Validity. Held: The charges established derogated from discipline and constituted service misconduct; penalty of withholding increments is permissible under Statute 13(9)(b)(ii). However, debarment from holding administrative responsibilities for a period of three years is not one of the penalties enumerated under Statute 13(9)(b). The said punishment is beyond the authority of the IIT, manifestly illegal, and stands quashed. Penalty of withholding two increments without cumulative effect sustained. Writ Petition partly allowed.
Title: Prof. Anandh Subramaniam Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: J.J. Munir
English hearing
WRIA/4265 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 19-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 422
HEADNOTE hearing
Departmental Inquiry - Initiation - Regulation 351-A of Civil Service Regulations - Limitation Period - Delay in Issuance of Charge-Sheet - Held: A departmental inquiry against a retired employee is initiated only upon issuance of the charge- sheet, not the order authorizing the inquiry. Proceedings under Regulation 351-A of CSR are valid only for misconduct within four years of retirement or inquiry initiation. Inordinate, unexplained delay in issuing the charge-sheet vitiates the inquiry. The inquiry order dated 19.01.2016 and charge-sheet dated 16.07.2024, issued over nine years post-retirement for an incident in 2010-11, were quashed as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner was entitled to all retiral benefits with 7% interest, with penal interest of 10% for non-compliance within two months.
Title: Narendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
English hearing
WRIA/3653 /2001 Judgment/Order Date: 23-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 411
HEADNOTE hearing
Constitution of India, Article 226 - Certified Standing Orders of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Clauses 3, 19(ii), 26, 27 - Termination for Unauthorized Absence - Petitioner, a permanent workman (Clerk-cum-Typist), challenged the termination order dated 26/28.02.1991 for unauthorized absence from 01.10.1990, struck off under Clause 19(ii) of the Standing Orders, and sought reinSt.ment. Petitioner claimed illness, sent multiple letters via Under Postal Certificate (not registered), and argued that termination required disciplinary enquiry under Clauses 26 and 27, not Clause 19(ii), which was inapplicable to permanent workmen, citing Chandu Lal vs. Pan American World Airways. Respondent countered that Clause 19(ii) applied to all workmen, show cause notices were issued and received, and the writ petition, filed in 2001, was barred by laches, per Scooters India vs. Vijai E.VS Eldred. The court held that Clause 19(ii) applied to the petitioner as a workman under Clause 3, and the management followed due process by issuing show cause notices, complying with natural justice, per Buckingham and Carnatic Company vs. Venkatiah. The petitioner's reliance on unregistered postal certificates lacked evidentiary value, per Shiv Kumar vs. St. of Haryana. The 10-year delay in filing the writ petition was unexplained, rendering it barred by laches. Termination was upheld as abandonment, not retrenchment, requiring no disciplinary enquiry, per National Engineering Industries vs. Hanuman. Writ petition dismissed. (Paras 10-24) Writ petition dismissed.
Title: Rajendra Prasad Tripathi Vs. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Brij Raj Singh
English hearing
WRIA/790 /2020 Judgment/Order Date: 13-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 409
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Service Law - UP Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servant (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974 - Rule 2 (a) - Compassionate appointment - Petitioner's father was muster roll employee - Son's entitlement - Held, a muster roll employee in the likeness of daily wager and workcharge employee is not a government servant within the meaning of Rule 2 (a) of Rules, 1974 - Petitioner being the son of a muster roll employee is not entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds in the respondent-corporation - Pavan Kumar Yadav's case relied upon - High Court directed to decide petitioner's representation regarding dues and other entitlement. (Para 7, 8 and 12) Writ petition disposed of. (E-1)
Title: Rajan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Ajay Bhanot
English hearing
SPLA/727 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 07-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 396
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Service Law - UP Secondary Education (Service Selection Boards) Act, 1982 - Rules framed under Act of 1982 - Rule 11 - Post of Principal - Power of appointment by way of transfer, extent of - Requisition was sent after vacancy was arisen - However, appointment by way of transfer was made - Permissibility - Held, once the requisition for direct recruitment was sent to the Inspector, by the Management, in terms of rules 11 of the rules framed under the Act of 1982, the transfer of a teacher against such vacancy was impermissible - Prashant Kumar Katiyar' case relied upon. (Para 16) B. Service Law - UP Education Service Selection Commission Act, 2023 - Section 31(2) - Post of Principal - Appointment - Requisition was already sent for appointment - How far, such requisition is saved under Act of 2023 - Held, the determination of vacancies and its intimation to the commission virtually commences the process of recruitment in these institutions. Sending of the requisition to the board would, therefore, continue to be saved under the Act of 2023 and the only change would be that now the appointment will have to be made by the commission in place of the board. (Para 34) Special Appeal allowed. (E-1)
Title: Mayashankar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Ashwani Kumar Mishra,Praveen Kumar Giri
English hearing
SPLA/607 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 06-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 389
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Service Law - UP Palika (Centralized) Services Rules, 1966 - Rules 21 & 21-A(1) - Pension, fixation thereof - Claim to count the past services rendered before their regularization was made - Permissibility - Delay was caused by St. in regularization - Effect - Held, by virtue of Rule 21-A(1), their services were liable to be considered for regularisation soon after the introduction of Rule 21-A(1) in the Rules, 1966. Merely because the St. did not consider their services for regularisation for sufficiently long would not be a valid ground to allow the St. to contend now that since their entry into service is after 1.4.2005, therefore, they would not be entitled to the benefit under the Old Pension Scheme - Any delay occasioned by the St. in consideration of their claim for regularisation cannot be a ground to deny benefit of pension to the writ petitioners. (Para 16 and 23) Special Appeal disposed of. (E-1)
Title: State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Chandra Mohan Yadav
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Ashwani Kumar Mishra,Praveen Kumar Giri
English hearing
WRIA/362 /2005 Judgment/Order Date: 07-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 381
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Service Law - Termination - Charge of misconduct - No regular enquiry was conducted - Effect - Service was terminated on the ground of misconduct, but without without holding a regular inquiry or affording opportunity of hearing to him - Permissibility - Brijesh Kumar's case relied upon - Held, if any punishment order is stigmatic or based on some allegations, the services of an employee may not be dispensed with without following the due procedure of law, therefore, the impugned punishment orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law - High Court refused to remand back the matter as the petitioner was retired and there is no Rules empowering the respondent to proceed after retirement. (Para 16, 20 and 21) Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
Title: Ram Krishna Mishra Vs. State of U.P.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Brij Raj Singh
English hearing
SPLA/259 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 08-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 367
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Service Law - UP Public Services (Reservation for Economically Weaker Section) Act, 2020 - Sections 1(1), 3(3) & 4 - Office Memorandum dated 18.02.2019 & 13.08.2019 - Reservation for Economic Weaker Section - Advertisement for 69,000 post of Assistant Teachers was issued on 17.05.2020 - Act of 2020 shows that it is to come into force on 01.02.2019 - However, Hon'ble Single Judge opined that Act of 2020 came to be enacted on 31.8.2020, hence the fact that it has been made effective from 18.2.2019 would not be of any help to the appellant - Validity challenged - Held, appropriate legislature can always introduce legislation with retrospective effect - It would be difficult to accept that the EWS reservation will commence from 31.8.2020 and not from 18.2.2019 when office memorandum was issued by the St. providing for EWS reservation in employment of St.. (Para 36 and 37) B. Constitution of India,1950 - Article 162 - Executive power, extent thereof - It's relativity with legislative power - Held, executive powers of St. is co-extensive with its legislative power - Once provision for EWS reservation was made available to the St. by virtue of 103rd Constitutional Amendment, it was open for the St. to implement EWS reservation either by making legislation or by issuing executive instructions - The St. Government was competent to provide for EWS reservation in public employment of St. by issuing office memorandum dated 18.2.2019. (Para 37 and 40) C. Grant of relief - Process of recruitment was already concluded - None of the selected candidates has been impleaded as a party respondent - Competence of court to issue direction, of which implementation would be a mere impossibility - Held, in the event 10% EWS Reservation is required to be extended a direction will have to be issued to draw a merit list for candidates belonging to EWS Category - It would not be prudent exercise of discretion for this Court to issue any direction to extend 10% EWS reservation in the recruitment in question, at this stage, as implementation of such direction would be a mere impossibility. It is otherwise settled that without impleadment of persons affected or any challenge made to their appointment no direction can be issued which has the effect of dislodging selected candidates. (Para 47) Special Appeal disposed of. (E-1)
Title: Shivam Pandey & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Ashwani Kumar Mishra,Praveen Kumar Giri
English hearing
SPLA/167 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 28-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 359
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Service Law - Termination - Post of Assistant Teacher - Termination order was passed as appointment was made on excess post - High Court stayed termination and during the course absorption was made on existing post - Irregularity in earlier appointment, how far effect absorption - Held, the appellants having been absorbed on existing vacancies, the irregularity, if any initially in their appointments, would be deemed to have been cured - Mansaram's case and Madras Aluminium Comp. Ltd.'s case relied upon. (Para 14) Special Appeal allowed. (E-1)
Title: Devendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Siddhartha Varma,Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
English hearing
SPLA/69 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 22-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 352
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Service Law - Selection - Post of Samiksha Adhikari - Suppression of material information - Non-disclosure of criminal case, when can be ignored - Petitioner belongs to village background - Effect - Held, while considering such cases, the atmosphere prevailing in rural villages should also be taken in account. In our villages minor civil cases are given the colour of criminality and quite often the accused persons are not even aware of the fact that some criminal proceedings were going on - Further held, we fail to understand as to why a person would try to deprive himself of his job and would not give an information which he possessed. (Para 8) Special Appeal dismissed. (E-1)
Title: State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Dinesh Kumar
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Siddhartha Varma,Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
English hearing
A482/26740 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 12-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 314
HEADNOTE hearing
Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 155(2) & 482 - Public Gambling Act, 1867 - Sections 3 & 4 - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 19(1)(g)- Application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. - for quashing charge-sheet and summoning order - FIR - charge sheet - under Sections 3/4 of Public Gambling Act - summoning order - applicants argued offences are non-cognizable - and investigation without Magistrate's permission violates Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. - cited Keshav Lal Thakur Vs St. of Bihar - Court found that, entire proceedings void ab initio - Public Gambling Act outdated - lacks provisions for digital platforms, cross-border transactions - negligible penalties fail to deter large-scale operations - global models (UK, US, Australia) offer modern regulatory frameworks - fantasy sports in India in legal grey zone - GST Council imposes 28% tax on online bets - urgent need for central legislation - Court takes suo-motu cognizance - directs UP Government to form High-Powered Committee chaired by Prof. K.VS Raju - mandate: draft comprehensive law for regulating online betting and gaming - justice must evolve with technology - procedural lapses cannot override constitutional safeguards - Accordingly, application is disposed of - and the impugned chargesheet as well as summoning order are hereby quashed with liberty to the police to initiate fresh investigation after complying with existing provisions of law. (Para -15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25) Application Disposed of. (E-11)
Title: Imran Khan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Vinod Diwakar
English hearing
A482/4623 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 29-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 291
HEADNOTE hearing
Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 500 - Summoning order - Quashing of - Trial court, by impugned order found that applicant's St.ment prima facie defamed Indian Army and its personnel, demoralizing them and their families - Since St.ment not made in discharge of official duties, Section 197 Cr.P.C. does not apply - Complainant, retired Director of BRO alleged defamation - Finding sufficient grounds, court summoned applicant - Impugned order, applicant argued that alleged defamatory St.ment made against Indian Army, not complainant personally - Since complainant is not Indian Army officer and applicant not target him directly, he cannot be aggrieved person under Section 199 Cr.P.C., therefore has no right to file complaint - Objection rejected - Trial Court, after considering complaint, complainant's St.ment under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and witnesses St.ments under Section 202 Cr.P.C., found applicant's remarks defamatory - As held in Delhi Race Club (infra), no interference is required unless there is clear illegality, and High Court cannot substitute its own opinion for that of Trial Court - Applicant made alleged defamatory St.ment while addressing media correspondents, intending it to be published in newspapers - No case is made out for quashing summoning order. (Para 9, 10, 19, 32) Application dismissed. (E-13)
Title: Rahul Gandhi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Subhash Vidyarthi
English hearing
A482/16 /2016 Judgment/Order Date: 29-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 273
HEADNOTE hearing
Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376, 323, 504 & 506 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(2) (V) - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 4 - As per F.I.R, accused committed rape on informant's daughter - Applicant appointed as Investigating Officer, conducted investigation, filed charge sheet - During trial, all prosecution witnesses (PW-1 to PW-5) examined , supported prosecution's case - Alleged that applicant did not get victim's St.ment recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. nor recorded doctor's St.ment - Trial court, considering this wilful negligence, made adverse remarks against applicant - Applicant, before court St.d victim was unwell and requested not to record her St.ment - Although victim later denied before trial court, no evidence she ever filed any complaint against applicant before Magistrate - Trial court recorded St.ments of applicant and victim in usual course, but upon concluding applicant committed wilful negligence, opportunity of hearing should be given - Trial court made adverse remarks against applicant without establishing 'wilful negligence' in investigation, ignoring settled law and defeating purpose of Act, 1989. (Para 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 21, 27, 28) Application allowed. (E-13)
Title: Balaram Chari Dubey Vs. State of U.P.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Shree Prakash Singh
English hearing
WTAX/1828 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 01-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 265
HEADNOTE hearing
Petitioner, a proprietorship engaged in the business of trading under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017- order of assessing officer - u/s 74 of the GST Act- absolutely ex parte- neither alleged show cause notice was ever brought to the knowledge -nor service was physically ever effected upon petitioner- party under liability of tax in an ex parte order needs at-least an opportunity to put up his defense- order passed by the assessing officer shall be taken to be notice within the meaning of Section 74 of the GST Act, 2017 to enable the petitioner to file his objection. W.P. disposed. (E-9)
Title: M/s Saini Zarda Store Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Ajit Kumar
English hearing
WTAX/501 /2023 Judgment/Order Date: 26-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 254
HEADNOTE hearing
(A) Taxation Law - GST - Input Tax Credit - U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 /Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section 16(2)(c), 41,43A & 74 - eligibility and condition for input tax credit (ITC) - "Tax charged in respect of such supply has been actually paid to Government" - Burden of proof upon purchasing dealer - eligibility to ITC under Section 16(2)(c) is subject to actual deposit of tax by supplier - Mere production of tax invoice and payment through banking channel not sufficient - Burden lies on purchasing dealer to prove genuineness of transaction and actual movement of goods - Failure to prove deposit of tax by supplier disentitles purchaser from claiming ITC - Section 74 mechanism operates to recover wrongly availed ITC - Preventive scheme under GST to curb bogus/fraudulent ITC claims emphasised - Compliance of Section 16(2)(c) mandatory - burden on dealer cannot shift to Revenue - ITC claim unsustainable where supplier fails to deposit tax and purchaser fails to prove actual transaction and deposit of tax as mandated under Section 16(2)(c). (Para 9, 11, 16, 19 to 21, 24, 28 to 31) Petitioner, a registered dealer under U.P. GST Act - claimed ITC for 2017-18 on filter paper purchases from supplier Shree Radhey International - Supplier's registration was later cancelled - tax remained unpaid - Tax authorities demanded reversal via Section 74 notice - appellate authority upheld demand. (Para 1 to 3 ,27 to 31) HELD: - Petitioner failed to establish that supplier deposited tax with Government as required by Section16(2)(c). Mere production of tax invoice and payment through banking channel not sufficient. Burden of proof to establish actual transaction, physical movement of goods, and tax deposit lies on purchasing dealer. Authorities rightly reversed ITC under Section 74. No interference warranted. Interim order discharged. (Para - 19 to 21, 28 to 31, 33 to 36) Petition dismissed. (E-7)
Title: Trendships Online Services Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. at Lucknow & Anr.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
English hearing
CRLP/21016/2024 Judgment/Order Date: 22-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 224
HEADNOTE hearing
Criminal Law - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 19(1)(a), 19(2), 21 & 226 - Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) - Sections 132, 132(1), 221, 152, 191(2), 193(3), 196, 221, 228, 298, 299, 302, 351, 351(2), 353 & 356(3) - - The Information Technology Act, 2000 - Sections 66 - Writ Petition - seeks to quash FIR - alleging that petitioner's tweets, including a video, incited violence and led to an attack on Dasna Devi Temple - plea taken that FIR is a misuse of law aimed at curbing dissent, asserting that tweets are protected under Article 19(1)(a) and lacked any intent to provoke rebellion or separatism - Section 152 BNS added without proper investigation - St.'s counsel opposed plea, contending that petitioner's influential tweets incited subversive activities and endangered national integrity, thereby attracting restrictions under Article 19(2) - St. insists FIR involves serious allegations and cannot be quashed in part - Court finds that - (i) India is a country with diverse religions, tribes and races, and tweets made by petitioner, if misunderstood by any section of society, could potentially affect public harmony, - (ii) the "test of fire in a crowded theatre" is not applicable in the present case, - (iii) while Section 152 BNS serves as a safeguard for the St. against seditious activity, whether petitioner's St.ments excited secession, armed rebellion or encouraged separatist sentiments is a matter to be determined through investigation, - (iv) investigating agencies are best equipped to examine the allegations and the truth is yet to emerge, - (v) interim protection granted earlier was not misused by petitioner - Court held - a false implication may prejudice rights guaranteed under Article 21, hence, refrains from interfering at this stage - direction issued to continue investigation in the instant case, with protection that petitioner shall not be arrested or harassed in any manner pursuant to the FIR, till conclusion of investigation, subject to full cooperation - writ petition disposed of with further directions that petitioner shall remain available for investigation and shall not leave the country. (Para - 44, 45, 46, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55) Writ Petition Allowed. (E-11)
Title: Mohammad Zubair Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Siddhartha Varma,Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
English hearing
CRLP/16327/2024 Judgment/Order Date: 23-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 210
HEADNOTE hearing
Criminal Law - Constitution of India,1950 - Article - 226 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 2(wa), - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -Sections 34, 120-B, 302, 307 - U.P. Ganster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - Sections 2(b), 2(b)(1) to (XXV), 2(c), 3(1) - U.P. Ganster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 - Rule 5, 5(1), 5(2), 5(3)- (a),(b),(c),(d),(e), 16, 17, 18 & 24 - National Security Act, 1980 - Section 3(2) - Writ Petition - challenge to proceedings under the Gangster Act - FIR lodged under the Gangster Act - questioned for non-compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards as per Gangster Rules - petitioner in jail - plea raised that FIR was registered without adherence to Rule 5(3)(a), which mandates "due discussion" among officials prior to gang-chart preparation - reliance placed on precedents including Sanni Mishra, Abdul Lateef, and Ram Manohar Lohia - petitioner pointed out irregularities in gang- chart approval process and asserted that victims in base cases lack locus standi in Gangster Act proceedings - Court's observed that - (i) judgments cited by the St. found to be inapplicable to the present context, (ii) victims have no right to oppose a writ petition under the Gangster Act, (iii) mandatory "due discussion" among competent authorities prior to gang-chart preparation was conspicuously absent, indicating lack of application of mind, (iv) FIR under the Gangster Act appeared to be lodged in a mechanical manner, with glaring inconsistencies such as branding the petitioner absconding despite his incarceration - court held that, (i) Branding someone a gangster requires careful procedural compliance, especially when the individual is already facing trial in base cases, (ii) petitioner was falsely implicated under the Gangster Act - Consequently, impugned FIR, charge-sheet and the gang-chart are quashed. (Para - 7, 17, 19, 20, 21) Writ petition stands allowed. (E-11) Writ Petition Allowed. (E-11)
Title: Kamalveer Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Siddhartha Varma,Madan Pal Singh
English hearing
CRLP/9733/2025 Judgment/Order Date: 15-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 205
HEADNOTE hearing
Criminal Law - Constitution of Indian,1950 - Article 226 & 227 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 50 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -Sections 120-B, 307, 323, 498-A & 506 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3 & 4 - Writ Petition - FIR - Arrest - Allegation of procedural irregularity - Accused-petitioner contends neither he nor his family was informed of grounds of arrest - produced before remand magistrate - grievance that Remand Magistrate failed to address procedural lapse or afford fair hearing - relying on Supreme Court's decision in Prabir Purkayastha Vs St. (NCT of Delhi), petitioner moved application before Additional Sessions Judge seeking to set aside remand order - Application remain pending - present writ petition filed seeking direction to decide said application expeditiously - court observed that - (i) petitioner's bail application already rejected on merits by coordinate bench, (ii) entertaining present writ would amount to indirectly overturning coordinate bench's order and directing lower court to review its bail rejection, (iii) petition suffers from unexplained delay and laches, (iv) petitioner failed to raise issue of illegal arrest during bail proceedings before Sessions Court or High Court, - court held that, (i) collateral challenge is legally impermissible and tantamount to subverting the hierarchy and finality of judicial orders, (ii) writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to bypass statutory remedies under Cr.P.C. - accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. (Para - 14, 15, 16, 17) Writ Petition Dismissed. (E-11)
Title: Shashank Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,Anil Kumar-X
English hearing
CRLA/2240 /2008 Judgment/Order Date: 26-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 191
HEADNOTE hearing
(A) Criminal Law - Murder - Attempt to murder - Grievous hurt - Possession of arms - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 374(2), 428 & 437-A - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302, 307, 326 - Arms Act, 1959 - Section 3/25 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 6 - Principle of "same transaction" - Ocular testimony of injured witness - Reliability - Medical evidence vis-à-vis ocular evidence - Related witnesses - Number of witnesses - Absence of motive - Effect - Where the eye witness's account is found credible and trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities is not accepted as conclusive - Where direct evidence of injured eyewitness is trustworthy and corroborated by other witnesses and medical evidence, absence of motive or faulty investigation do not warrant acquittal - power to impose a modified punishment providing for any specific term of incarceration or till the end of the convict's life as an alternate to death penalty, can be exercised only by the High Court and the Supreme Court and not by any other inferior court. (Para - 38 to 41, 44 to 46, 48 to 52,54) Appellant, armed with country-made pistol - fired at two boys playing in village - bullet grazed arm of one (PW-2) and fatally injured other (Rafiq), aged 18 - caught on spot by villagers with weapon - Rafiq died next morning - Trial Court convicted appellant - sentencing him to life imprisonment for murder - concurrent sentences for other offences - hence appeal. (Para - 7 to 14) HELD: - Conviction affirmed. Sentence for Section 302 IPC modified from life imprisonment to 25 years' rigorous imprisonment. Fine maintained. No perversity in the findings of trial court. (Para - 52 to 56) Appeal partly allowed. (E-7)
Title: Annu Vs. State of U.P.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Sangeeta Chandra
English hearing
CRLA/1598 /2007 Judgment/Order Date: 29-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 162
HEADNOTE hearing
Circumstantial evidence- no direct evidence of the murder -facts about mental illness of the appellant emerging from very beginning of lodging of the first information report by the first informant (father of the appellant)- and in the deposition witnesses, 2,3 & 4, which has been ignored -plea of mental sickness taken by the appellant in his defence-in his St.ment u/s313 of the Cr.P.C- medical prescriptions produced -trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence led by the defence -conviction set aside. Appeal allowed. (E-9)
Title: Rajesh @ Sajesh Tewari Vs. State of U.P.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Sangeeta Chandra,Shree Prakash Singh
English hearing
CRLA/1546 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 21-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 158
HEADNOTE hearing
(A) Criminal Law - Attachment and Release of Property - Maintainability of Appeal - U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - Sections 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 & 29 - Scheme of Act provides appeal lies only against order of Court and not administrative order - District Magistrate (or delegated authority) is mandated to refer matter to competent Court for inquiry after rejection of application for release - Liberty to approach Special Court cannot substitute statutory reference obligation - Where the authority fails to make a mandatory reference under Section 16 after rejecting a Section 15 application, the High Court can modify the order to direct such reference . (Para - 12 to 18) Dispute relates to attachment of property under Gangsters Act - Commissioner of Police attached a flat under Section 14(1) of the Gangsters Act - alleging it was acquired from proceeds of crime - Appellant claimed to be a bonafide purchaser for value and in possession of the said flat since 2016 - Appellant's application for release of the property under Section 15 was rejected by the Commissioner of Police - against which the present appeal under Section 18 was filed. (Para - 6 to 8) HELD: - Impugned order rejecting the release application was modified to the extent that the matter stands referred to the Special Court having jurisdiction to try such matters. Commissioner of Police was directed to pass appropriate orders for referring the matter to the competent Court with expedition. Order of attachment was directed to be kept in abeyance till the matter is decided by the competent Court in accordance with law. (Para 18 to 20). Appeal partly allowed. (E-7)
Title: Raje Bhasin Vs. Commissioner of Police, Police Commissionerate Lucknow & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Alok Mathur
English hearing
CRLA/1507 /1983 Judgment/Order Date: 28-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 130
HEADNOTE hearing
(A) Criminal Law - Murder and Attempt to Murder - Conviction - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302, 307 read with 34 - Proof of Common Intention - Motive and Direct Evidence Established - Testimony of related or interested witnesses, if credible and trustworthy, is sufficient for conviction - Presence of eye-witnesses, corroborated by post-mortem and chemical analysis, sufficiently established the guilt of appellants beyond reasonable doubt - motive and sequence of events ruled out false implication. (Para - 12,42,47 to 53,72,73) (B) Words and Phrases - "Interested witness" does not mean "related witness" - an interested witness is one who has a personal stake in the conviction. (Paras 40) Accused having married the widow of the informant's nephew - seeking sole claim over agricultural land - developed animosity when the informant initiated legal proceedings asserting reversionary rights - On 26.11.1982, at about 7:30 a.m., accused and one other - armed with tabbals, assaulted and killed the informant's son - attempted to murder the informant and another witness by firing at them, but they escaped unhurt - FIR was lodged promptly at 10:15 a.m. the same day. (Para - 3, 15-18, 30) HELD: - Conviction of the appellants under Sections 302 and 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC was affirmed. Prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt through credible eye-witnesses supported by medical evidence. Defence theory was found to be untrustworthy and unconvincing. FIR was held to be lodged promptly. Presence of the accused at the place of occurrence and their participation in the crime was proved.(Para - 72,73) Appeal dismissed. (E-7)
Title: Shambhu & Anr. Vs. State
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi
English hearing
CRLA/652 /2001 Judgment/Order Date: 29-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 113
HEADNOTE hearing
(A) Criminal Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Appreciation of Testimony - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 307, 323 & 504 - Arms Act, 1959 - Section 3/25 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 134 & 114 (g) - Quality, not quantity, of evidence is decisive - conviction can rest on testimony of closely related witnesses only if wholly reliable and of sterling character - benefit of doubt must be given where prosecution evidence suffers serious lacunae and main witnesses are found unreliable or only partly reliable - Suspicion, howsoever grave, cannot take place of a proof - Related/Interested witness - Testimony must be carefully scrutinised and corroborated if not wholly reliable - Acquittal on parity where co- accused are acquitted on same evidence - Standard of proof - There is a long distance between 'may be' and 'must be - Where principal witnesses are not wholly reliable and corroboration is lacking, and there is unexplained non-production of material witnesses with serious discrepancies in prosecution case, conviction is unsustainable and benefit of doubt must go to accused. (Paras 48, 49, 58, 60, 61, 63 to 68) (B) Criminal Law - Acquittal on Identical Evidence - Benefit of Doubt - If co- accused are acquitted on same set of evidence, remaining accused also entitled to same benefit - Conviction cannot rest on identical evidence which was insufficient to convict co-accused. (Para 63 to 65) Two criminal appeals arose against conviction under Section 302 IPC (Lakhan) and Section 307 IPC r/w Section 3/25 Arms Act (Shera) in a case involving murder and injuries caused to several persons - conviction was based on testimony of related/injured witnesses only - with non-examination of all but two injured witnesses - there were discrepancies in ocular and medical evidence - contradictions between prosecution witnesses - and failure to explain non-production of independent witnesses as well as non-corroboration of recovery with forensic (FSL) link. (Paras - 1 to7, 22 to 29, 32 to 41, 59 to63) HELD: - Testimony of P.W.-2 was found wholly unreliable and that of P.W.-1 only partly reliable. Injured witnesses were not examined. Recovery was not independently corroborated. Serious discrepancies existed in prosecution story. Prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Evidence adduced by the prosecution cannot be said to meet the standard required to prove the guilt of the appellants in this case. Appellants ought to have been given the benefit of doubt. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellants acquitted. (Paras - 65 to 70) Appeals allowed. (E-7)
Title: Shera Vs. State of U.P.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Sangeeta Chandra,Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
English hearing
CRLA/538 /2021 Judgment/Order Date: 23-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 100
HEADNOTE hearing
(A) Criminal Law - Circumstantial evidence - Last seen theory - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 201 & 120-B - Admissibility of secondary evidence (photostat copy) - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 63 & 65 - Forensic Science Laboratory report - Chain of custody - Reliability of family members as last seen witnesses - Strong suspicion cannot take the place of proof - Chain of circumstantial evidence must be complete - Prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt - Mere suspicion or incomplete chain of events is insufficient for conviction - last seen theory not sufficient where significant time gap exists and independent corroboration is absent. (Paras - 28, 31, 35-39, 44-62, 55, 58, 61, 62) Deceased last allegedly seen with accused- appellants - delay in lodging FIR - prosecution rested on circumstantial evidence and "last seen" theory - recovery memo of weapon exhibited as secondary evidence - forensic evidence questioned - conviction by trial court - appeal against conviction. (Paras - 3-25) HELD: - Prosecution could not prove its case against accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Trial court erred in reliance on "last seen" testimonies and incomplete chain of circumstances. Conviction based on suspicion unsustainable. Impugned conviction and sentence set aside. Accused Ram Dev to be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case. Accused Laddan, on bail, not required to surrender. Bail bond discharged. (Paras - 62-65) Appeals allowed. (E-7)
Title: Ramdev Vs. State of U.P.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Siddhartha Varma,Madan Pal Singh
English hearing
CRLA/495 /1996 Judgment/Order Date: 29-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 93
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,1973-Section 374(2)-Indian Penal Code,1860-Sections 324 /34, 307/34, 504 & 109-Challenge to -Conviction-The victim was allegedly attacked by the appellants-appellant had demanded Rs. 100- from the victim 10 days prior and had threatened consequences if unpaid, on the incident day, one appellant caught hold of the victim and instigated the other appellant to fire at him-FIR was lodged and victim was medically examined -the fire arm injury was confirmed-PW-1 (Victim) supported the prosecution story and withstood cross-examination-PW-2 (Doctor) confirmed firearm injury- PW3(I.O.) corroborated procedural evidence and filed chargesheet-The court upheld that one appellant namely Sarvesh not only instigated but also actively assisted in the crime by catching hold of the victim-Common intention and abetment were clearly established-The injured witnesses testimony holds high evidentiary value and was found trustworthy even under cross- examination-Conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of an injured or credible witness-The Court relied on Palakom Abdul Rahiman Case and other decisions to emphasize the rule of joint liability and common intention u/s 34 IPC.(Para 1 to 23) The appeal is dismissed. (E-6)
Title: Sarvesh Kumar Dubey & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Rajnish Kumar
English hearing
CRLA/328 /1986 Judgment/Order Date: 30-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 77
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,1973-Section 374(2)-Indian Penal Code,1860-Sections 302/34 & 201/34- Challenge to -Conviction-The incident occurred in1983 in District Azamgarh-The deceased was allegedly attacked by the appellants with lathis and other weapons over a land dispute-FIR was lodged promptly by the complainant/PW-1 naming all accused-The post mortem confirmed injuries consistent with blunt force trauma-The court found that eyewitnesses accounts were consistent and trustworthy, FIR was promptly lodged, no major contradictions in medical and ocular evidence-The presence of all accused at the scene with weapons was proven by all three eyewitnesses-Other eyewitnesses corroborated the version of PW-1,stated that all accused armed with lathis and sticks attacked the deceased- Medical report fully corroborated the eyewitnesses accounts regarding nature of assault and types of weapons used- postmortem report conducted by PW5(doctor) shows that deceased suffered multiple lacerated wounds and fractures on vital parts of the body-land dispute between the parties was cited as motive and defence failed to rebut or offer any plausible alternative motive-The common intention and participation of all accused was well-supported by all evidences-Thus, Conviction and life sentence u/s 302/149 IPC were upheld.(Para 1 to 34) The appeal is dismissed. (E-6)
Title: Sarvanarain Tewari & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Vivek Kumar Birla,Jitendra Kumar Sinha
English hearing
CAPT/1 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 30-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 70
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 302, 201 & 376DB - Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 5 & 6 - Murder and Rape - Death sentence - Circumstances evidence - Relevancy - No witnesses were produce to proof fard regarding taking of underwear - Effect - Held, the case is based on circumstantial evidence, therefore, the prosecution is to prove each link in the chain of circumstances indicating the guilt of the accused but the fard paper no. 14A/1, F.S.L. & D.N.A. reports paper nos. 15A & 50A have been left unproved though relied by the learned trial court in convicting and sentencing the accused without giving him opportunity to explain about it - High Court remanded back to the learned trial court to summon the witnesses as court witnesses to prove fard regarding taking of underwear from the dead body of the deceased and scientific experts associated with the preparation and issuance of the F.S.L./D.N.A. report with the entire supporting material and opportunity of cross-examination be also given to the accused. (Para 24 and 26) B. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 313 - Trial court considered the FSL report, while passing the death sentence order - But the report has not been placed before the accused/appellant for the purpose of providing him an opportunity to explain the same u/s 313 Cr.P.C. - No relevant question regarding DNA report was put to appellant - Effect - Held, it is settled principle of law that any incriminating piece of evidence to be relied upon by the learned trial court for conviction must be provided to the accused to enable him to explain about its contents however the said exercise has not been undertaken by the learned court, which amounts to a glaring error on the part of the learned trial court and renders the order of conviction bad in law. (Para 19) Appeal allowed. (E-1)
Title: Shahid Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Rajiv Gupta,Subhash Chandra Sharma
English hearing
BAIL/13228 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 05-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 66
HEADNOTE hearing
Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376 D.A - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 5G/6 - On basis of F.I.R. lodged against five persons, including applicant alleged that while informant's sister was going to give food to her grandmother in other house, accused persons dragged her in sugarcane field and they raped her - When informant's mother and sister reached sugarcane field looking after victim, accused persons ran away, she was lying in unconscious condition - Victim (PW-2) supported prosecution in her examination-in-chief - She admitted that she did not see miscreants' faces as her eyes were closed, lost consciousness, regaining it on next day - Reiterated during cross-examination, not declared hostile - Bail granted to co-accused on factually incorrect submission cannot justify parity for applicant's release - Another co-accused granted bail as no allegation was made against him by prosecutrix in her St.ment recorded by trial court - Prosecutrix St.d about involvement of applicant in commission of offence, her mother saw him at spot of incident and when she reached there applicant ran away - Hence, ground on which co-accused granted bail is not applicable to applicant. (Para 3, 15, 22 to 24) Application rejected. (E-13)
Title: Jai Ram Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Subhash Vidyarthi
English hearing
BAIL/10409 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 29-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 59
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Criminal Law - Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita(BNS) 2023-Sections 303(2), 317(2) -Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS),2023-Section 479-Mines and Minerals Act,2023-Sections 4/21 & Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act,1984-Section 3-Prevention of Corruption Act,1988-Section 7-The applicant caught red-handed accepting a bribe of Rs. 5000/-The prosecution contended the applicant demanded bribe to not implicate the complainant in an earlier case where he was the investigating officer-The applicant denied conducting any investigation in that case- Upon reviewing the case diary the court found that there was no documentary evidence showing applicant ever investigated the earlier matter-The court held that the investigation was not conducted fairly and the applicant has been falsely implicated-Consequently, bail was granted with conditions.(Para 1 to 16) The application is allowed. (E-6)
Title: Shakeel Ahmad Vs. State of U.P.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Sanjay Kumar Singh
English hearing
ABAIL/1710 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 28-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 38
HEADNOTE hearing
Criminal Law - U.P. Gangsters and Anti- Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - Sections 2 & 3 - Anticipatory Bail - Maintainability - Objections decided by High Court is whether application maintainable as filed directly, contrary to Ankit Bharti (Infra) - Whether Cr.P.C (U. P. Amendment) Act, 2018 (Act No. 4 of 2019), which amended Section 438 Cr.P.C. in U.P., would stand repealed upon repeal of Cr.P.C. 1973 and enactment of BNSS, 2023 - Applicant taken plea for not filing anticipatory bail application before Sessions Judge on ground that rival party and his associates are financially sound - Over fifteen F.I.R lodged against applicant, including several by his brother- in-law due to animosity - Opponents exerting undue pressure on police officials, influencing judicial proceedings - Citing serious enmity and threat to life - Since, Cr.P.C. 1973 stands repealed and its St. amendments doesn't find place in saving clause of BNSS 2023, U.P. Amendment (Act No. 4 of 2019) is no longer enforceable - St.'s counter affidavit depicts new draft amendment for anticipatory bail under Sanhita 2023 is under preparation - Even if not expressly repealed, subsequent law enacted by Parliament on same matter will impliedly repeal St. law by virtue of proviso to Article 254 of Constitution, where it adds to, amends, varies, or repeals St. legislation - Thus, Cr.P.C (U.P. Amendment) Act, 2018 (U.P. Act No. 4 of 2019) stands impliedly repealed - Preliminary objection raised by opposite party rejected. (Para 3, 5, 47 to 50) Application pending. (E-13)
Title: Raman Sahni Vs. State of U.P.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Shree Prakash Singh
English hearing
ABAIL/447 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 30-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 20
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,1973-Section 438-Indian Penal Code,1860-Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 - The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 22(c )- Maintainability of anticipatory bail application in view of the facts that it pertains to NDPS Act and therefore is not maintainable in terms of section 438(6) CrPC-The court held that the repeal of the Code of criminal procedure and its replacement by the BNSS 2023 does not save the U.P. Amendment (Act No. 4 of 2019), which had barred anticipatory bail in NDPS Act offences-BNSS is not saving clause for state legislative amendments, and the term "notification" therein cannot include a state enactment under Article 246 of the Constitution-Relying on constitutional principles, section 6 of General Clauses Act, and the proviso to Article 254(2), the court ruled that where Parliament subsequently re-enacts a law with differences, the repugnant state law stands overridden-As section 482 BNSS omits the earlier embargo under section 438(6) CrPC, anticipatory bail is now maintainable even in NDPS Act offences- On facts, considering the lack of recovery from the applicant, the pending FSL report, and the prior grant of anticipatory bail under IPC sections, the Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant.(Para 1 to 61) The application is allowed. (E-6)
Title: Sudhir @ Sudhir Kumar Chaurasia Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Manish Mathur
English hearing
ARBT/109 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 05-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 8
HEADNOTE hearing
Civil Law - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 11, 11(6), 11(8), 12(1), 12(5) & 16 - Application under Section 11 of the Act, 1996 - seeking appointment of an independent arbitrator - as well as challenging the appointment of the arbitrator by Indian Oil Corporation - who was later revealed to be both an employee and shareholder of the IOC - on the ground of biasness under the Fifth and Seventh Schedules - initially, the applicants were waived Section 12(5) for an employee but no waiver was given for a shareholder - citing Perkins Eastman Architects DPC Vs HSCC (India) Ltd., the Court held that - once the applicants have withdrawn their consent regarding appointment of Shri S K Singh as an arbitrator who yet an employee and shareholder in IOC is not found to be ex facie valid and is clearly not countenanced in the eyes of the law - consequently, the Court annulled the appointment of Shir S K Singh and by exercising the power conferred u/section 11(6) of the Act, 1986 proposed to appoint Justice D.K. Arora (Retired) as the new arbitrator. (Para - 31, 32, 33, 34, 35) Application Pending. (E-11)
Title: M/s OM Automobiles & Anr. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Abdul Moin
English hearing
WRIC/27598 /2020 Judgment/Order Date: 04-03-2025 (2025) 3 ILRA 935
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Land Law - Compensation - Right to Property though, is not a Fundamental Right but a Constitutional Right, which has been recognized at par with the human rights, which are inalienable. Thus, no person can be deprived of his property except in accordance with law and in case where the land of a citizen has been acquired by the St. Authorities without proper acquisition, the same amounts to an action without Authority of law. Thus, a person whose property has been utilized without authority of law, is entitled for due compensation in accordance with the provisions of law applicable on the date of such utilization of the property by the St.. (Para 17) B. Delay and latches cannot be raised by a continuing cause of action or if the circumstances shocks the judicial conscious of the court. There is no period of limitation prescribed for the courts to exercise their constitutional jurisdiction to do substantial justice. (Para 18) In the instant case it is apparent that the land of the petitioner to the extent of 0.033 hectares had been utilized by the St. Authorities without authority of law and without there being any acquisition of the land in accordance with law. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for the compensation, which is required to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. (Para 19) Since the land of the petitioner been utilized without any proper acquisition, therefore, Special Land Acquisition Officer cannot be directed to quantify the compensation or recommend its payment. In view thereof, matter is remitted back to the District Level Committee to determine the compensation. (Para 20) Writ petition allowed. (E-4)
Title: Kanyawati Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Manoj Kumar Gupta,Anish Kumar Gupta
English hearing
WRIC/15023 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 26-03-2012 (2025) 3 ILRA 913
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Mining Law - Mining of replenished sand - Sustainable mining - U.P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 2021 - Rule 42h(1), Rules 10, 17 of Chapter II, Rule 23 of Chapter IV, Rules, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42, 45 of Chapter V - If the post-monsoon replenishment study does not reflect adequate replenishment in the manner and to the extent envisaged in the EMGSM-2020, no mining can be permitted in the area pertaining to the mining lease. Due and timely payment of installments under the terms of a mining lease is based on winning existing minerals for which the lease is granted which corresponds to the quality and quantity contemplated in the DSR and the replenishment studies, particularly, the post-monsoon replenishment study. For want of adequate replenishment of the mineral or non- availability of mineral in the requisite quantity in various other parts of the area for which lease has been granted, neither can any mining activity be permitted nor, consequently, can any claim for installments be sustained unless there is actual replenishment or availability. It is for these circumstances that preparation of proper DSR and conducting audit assumes importance. (Para 50) B. The EMGSM-2020 guidelines recommends that it is imperative to have a study of replenishment of material during the defined period to minimize the adverse impact arising out of sand mining in a given river stretch. The EMGSM-2020 guidelines provides that the excavation will be limited to estimated replenishment estimated with consideration of other regulatory provisions. (Para 42) Therefore, the fact that the second post- monsoon replenishment study dated 8.1.2024 reflects replenishment of 16380 cubic meters of sand available for mining purpose has to be read in light of the location where this deposit/replenishment has taken place in the given river stretch. Then, it has to be ascertained in the light of EMGSM-2020, whether such replenishment is minable. (Para 43) C. There appears to be an effort to extract revenue from mining operations for benefit of the State exchequer without empathy and consideration of ecology, and sustainable mining, which aspects have to be balanced with the imperatives of development and earnings for the State exchequer. (Para 47) The respondents seem to be quite oblivious of the importance of proper replenishment, the mining plan and the DSR when they seek to raise demands and make claims without addressing the ecological concerns that are reflected in the EMGSM-2020 guidelines that also address the aspect of sustainable mining. (Para 44, 45) D. The terms of the lease-deed cannot override the aforesaid Notification of 2016, the SSMMG-2016, EMGSM-2020 guidelines and the Act and Rules. (Para 48) No doubt, there is a contract, the lease-deed, entered into between the respondents and the petitioner, the terms of which bind them both. However, in case no adequate replenishment takes place even after water of river recedes down, then any advance payment of installments by the petitioner would result in serious loss to it which eventuality is neither contemplated in the lease deed nor in the Rules, 2021. Therefore the contention sought to be made that payment of installment should be made by the petitioner and eMM-11 forms be uploaded to the extent of carried forward quantity of minerals which could not have been mined in the preceding months till March 2024, is fallacious. (Para 46) The petitioner could not have been forced to mine the relatively meagre amount of 16380 cubic meters of replenished sand that was reflected in the last replenishment study report submitted by the petitioner without ascertaining whether the replenishment that had taken place in the stretch of land/river was such that mining of the same could be permitted in the backdrop of sustainable mining. There is no DSR shown to have been prepared. (Para 51) Since, steps have been taken by the State Government for fresh auction of the mining area that was granted to the petitioner, the petitioner is not liable to deposit any installment after the stoppage of mining operations for the period from 1.7.2023 onwards. If any amount has been deposited/recovered/confiscated by/against the petitioner, the same shall be refunded within a period of one month from today along with simple interest @ 9% per annum calculated from the date of such deposit/recovery/confiscation till the actual payment. (Para 54) Writ petition allowed. (E-4)
Title: M/S Anandeshwar Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Ashwani Kumar Mishra,Jayant Banerji
English hearing
WRIA/18731 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 06-03-2025 (2025) 3 ILRA 908
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Service Law - Appointment - U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 - Rule 12 r/w Rules of 1998 - Even a selected candidate has no indefeasible right of appointment and there must be a timeline to conclude a process and in present case, recruitment process was initially initiated in 2013 i.e. about 12 years ago and last supplementary select list was published in 2018 i.e. 7 years ago and to continue such process after so many years could not be reasonable. (Para 16) Writ petitions dismissed. (E-4)
Title: Gaurav Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
English hearing
WRIA/14895 /2017 Judgment/Order Date: 24-03-2025 (2025) 3 ILRA 902
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Service Law - Superannuation - Date of birth - Recovery of salary - It is a well settled principle of law that if an employer takes work from an employee in consequence of a mistake, the employee cannot be denied his remuneration or salary. If denial were permitted on ground that the continuance in office of the employee and the rendering of service by him was without authority of the law, it would amount to the taking of begar, prohibited u/Article 23 of the Constitution. The respondents here are the St. and they certainly cannot take begar from the petitioner for the extra year that he has served them. It is not that the petitioner has rendered pro bono service. Immediately before 30.06.2014, the petitioner was entitled to work in the employ of the respondents and for the next one year, he was permitted to work, on account of a mistaken DOB recorded in the character roll. The petitioner is not a wayfarer or a trespasser in office. He was a duly appointed Sub- Inspector, who was permitted to continue discharging his duties with the respondents believing that he had to superannuate after a year, on the foot of his DOB being 13.06.1955. In these circumstances, it would be a constitutionally prohibited begar, if the respondents are permitted to recover the remuneration, which the petitioner received for the period 01.07.2014 to 30.06.2015. (Para 18) B. In the case here, the respondents may be right about the petitioner's age, but the petitioner too has not played any fraud or acted mala fide. The incorrect entry in the character roll about the petitioner's DOB cannot be blamed on the petitioner. The respondents have to take responsibility for that entry, whether scored out and corrected or recorded free from blemish. The petitioner too had basis to believe bona fide that he would be entitled to continue until 30.06.2015, because his DOB recorded in the High School Certificate is 13.06.1955. Therefore, if the respondents permitted the petitioner to continue on the basis that his DOB was 13.06.1955, they may be right in correcting it to 13.06.1954, but the petitioner is also not utterly wrong in the sense the mind of the one, who was out to play a fraud, would have worked. There is nothing like that in the petitioner's case. (Para 21) The petitioner would be entitled to the computation of his post retiral benefits and the determination and payment of his final pension regarding his date of superannuation to be 30.06.2014; not 30.06.2015. This will be done on the basis that his DOB is 13.06.1954. (Para 23) Writ petition allowed in part. (E-4)
Title: Jay Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: J.J. Munir
English hearing
WRIA/13305/2024 Judgment/Order Date: 10-03-2025 (2025) 3 ILRA 885
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Service Law - Determination of basic pay - Grant of notional increment - Pension - The annual increment earned by a government employee during the previous year could not be denied to him for the purpose of determining his pensionary benefits, merely because he was not in service on the day the increment actually fell due, that is, if he had retired a day before it fell due, though completing one full year of service, otherwise entitling him to increment. The increment had to be notionally granted and its benefit extended for the purpose of determining the employee's post-retiral benefits. (Para 7, 8) B. Pendency of the application does not entitle the respondents, including an officer of the said respondents, to say that they are not in a position to carry out the orders of this Court made following the law laid down by the Supreme Court, merely because clarification applications have been filed. Most certainly, this Court is bound by the law declared by the Supreme Court u/Article 141 of the Constitution and every officer of the respondent is bound to carry out every writ of this Court, unless it is set aside or stayed in appeal. (Para 11) After the Supreme Court passes a judgment, there is nothing not final about it. There is no Court above the Supreme Court, and once a judgment is passed by their Lordships, it is the end of the road for both litigants. An order cannot be disregarded by a sundry officer of the government, saying that he will disregard the law laid down by a Constitutional Court in a judgment, and more than that, a writ inter parties awaiting a policy decision of the Government. It is true that every litigant has the right to seek a clarification of an order passed by a Court, even a Constitutional Court, but it is not open to any officer of the Government to say that the benefit of the Supreme Court's judgment or compliance of the High Court's order, if not stayed or set aside by the Supreme Court, will depend upon the policy decision of the Department of Personnel & Training, GOI. The Government of India cannot sit in judgment on a writ of the Court, once issued. A writ stops only if it is stayed in competent proceedings, like an appeal, if allowed from the order or a review or a clarification or some such proceedings. It is all the more contumacious on the part of the Director General, RPF, Railway Board to say that he is not in a position to extend benefit of one notional increment to the petitioners who retired on the 30th June as per the judgment. (Para 10) The petitioners and each of them would be entitled to receive notional increments for the respective years in which they superannuated on the 30th of June, but they would be paid pension on the basis of their revised emoluments with the notional increments added with effect from 1st May, 2023. (Para 14, 15, 17) Writ petition allowed. (E-4)
Title: R.K. Prasad & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: J.J. Munir
English hearing
WRIC/39442/2024 Judgment/Order Date: 06-03-2025 (2025) 3 ILRA 882
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Service Law - Appointment - Jurisdiction - The appointment of public servant or any dispute in respect of service conditions since are regulated by the statutory scheme they are supposedly kept out of the provisions of the Act of 1975. The allegation that an appointment of a public servant has been made illegally or contrary to law would not fall within the realm of jurisdiction of the Lokayukta or Up Lokayukta. This is particularly so as Section 8(1)(b) excludes matters from the purview of jurisdiction of the Lokayukta/Up Lokayukta. Clause (d) of the Third Schedule clearly postulates that action taken in respect of appointments, removals, pay, discipline, etc., would be excluded from the scope of inquiry by the Lokayukta/Up Lokayukta, except matters relating to claims, for pension, gratuity, provident fund, etc., which arise on retirement, removal or termination of service. (Para 11) Therefore, the complaint made by the petitioner questioning the appointment of private respondent before the Up Lokayukta itself is not maintainable. (Para 12) Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)
Title: Arvind Kumar Singh Vs. Lok Ayukta, U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Ashwani Kumar Mishra,Donadi Ramesh
English hearing
WRIA/16327 /2022 Judgment/Order Date: 10-03-2025 (2025) 3 ILRA 881
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - The penalty imposed upon the petitioner's father cannot be invoked to decline his application for the appointment on compassionate grounds. In the instant case the major penalty stood effaced two years after its imposition, and its adverse impact did not continue subsequent to the promotion of the petitioner's father. (Para 6) As per the impugned order the petitioner's claim for appointment on compassionate ground have been invalidated on the footing of provisions of the Scheme of appointment on compassionate ground, which provides that Committee will be authorised to decline all requests for compassionate appointment/ex-gratia payment in cases where major penalty was imposed on the ex-employee while in service, and/or where disciplinary action which was pending at the time of death of the ex-employee would have resulted in imposition of major penalty. (Para 4) The aforesaid disqualification will attach to an employee against whom major penalty was imposed and the remains in the record at the time of his death. (Para 5) Impugned order dated 03.03.2021 is set aside. Writ petition allowed. (E-4)
Title: Saurabh Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Ajay Bhanot
English hearing