Welcome to the Official Website of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, U.P., India

CRLA/1806 /1991 Judgment/Order Date: 21-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 832

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,1973- Section 313 - When the ossification test was conducted-the appellant was aged about 55 years on 24.6.2024- therefore, the age could not have been ascertained with all exactitude at this age of the appellant -it would be necessary to refer to the age already referred to in the St.ment u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 19.7.1991-the report of the Juvenile Justice Board has extended two years benefit to the accused-appellant -and hold him juvenile on the date of incident- and the same is accepted and the appellant is declared juvenile on the date of incident. Appeal allowed in part. (E-9)

Title: Chhalla @ Bhagwan Dass Vs. State of U.P.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Vivek Kumar Birla,Jitendra Kumar Sinha

English hearing

CRLA/1231/2023 Judgment/Order Date: 02-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 822

HEADNOTE hearing

A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,1973-Section 374(2)-Indian Penal Code,1860-Section 376(2)(i) & Section 5/6 of POCSO Act-Challenge to - Conviction-Appellant was convicted for allegedly committing penetrative sexual assault on a 6 year old girl-The FIR and eyewitness testimony did not mention any act indicating penetration-The victim's statement u/s 164 Crpc lacked clarity and consistency-medical evidence /(PW-6) showed no injuries- A chance witness (PW-7) could not identify the victim in court-At trial the victim's version were improved and not corroborated by other evidence-The court held that the prosecution only proved an act of "aggravated sexual assault" u/s 7/9(m) of the POCSO Act, not penetrative sexual assault-The sentence was accordingly reduced from life imprisonment to 7 years rigorous imprisonment u/s 10 of the POCSO Act- Since the appellant had already spent over 8 years in jail, the Court ordered his immediate release, subject to payment of fine.(Para 1 to 43) The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6)

Title: Heera Kol Vs. State of U.P.& Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Saumitra Dayal Singh,Sandeep Jain

English hearing

CRLA/1014/2025 Judgment/Order Date: 09-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 813

HEADNOTE hearing

A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,1973-Section 374(2)-Indian Penal Code,1860-Sectionss 147 & 323 - The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(X) -BNSS,2023-Section 239 (216 Crpc)-The appellant challenged the order dated 19.11.2024 passed by special judge, SC/ST-The challenge was specifically against the dismissal of his application u/s 239 of BNSS (formerly section 216 Crpc) seeking alteration of charges framed u/s 3(1)(X) of the SC/ST Act- -The appellant filed an application for alteration of charges under SC/ST Act as he belongs to Schedule Caste and section 3(1)X) which applies only to non - SC/ST persons, cannot be invoked against him-The Special Judge SC/ST rejected the application-Held-Only courts have the authority to alter charges under BNSS not the parties-SC/ST Act provisions cannot be invoked against SC/ST persons, and courts must rectify such legal errors even if brought up by the accused-The trial court is at liberty to suo motu consider the application and if convinced, correct the erroneous charges.(Para 1 to 26) The appeal was dismissed. (E-6)

Title: Radhey Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Shree Prakash Singh

English hearing

CRLA/482 /2004 Judgment/Order Date: 01-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 803

HEADNOTE hearing

A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,1973-Section 374(2)-Indian Penal Code,1860-Sections 363, 366 & 376- Indian Evidence Act,1872-Section 114A- challenge to-conviction-Appellants were convicted for raping a 15 year old girl-The FIR alleged that the accused, with the help from others, lured the minor girls 'S' and 'A' took them to Haryana -Victim 'S' gave detailed statements u/s 161 and 164 CrPc, accusing both the accused of forcibly abducting and repeatedly raping her- Victim 'A' turned hostile during trial and denied rape, claiming she went willingly and wanted to marry accused Rajesh- Held, When the prosecutrix is a minor any alleged consent to sexual activity is legally irrelevant-Conviction u/s 376 IPC is sustainable even in absence of physical injuries or medical proof of recent rape- The consistent and uncontroverted statement of the victim u/s 161 and 164 Crpc, when found trustworthy, is sufficient to sustain conviction without corroboration-Turning hostile by one victim does not vitiate the prosecution case if the other victim's testimony is reliable and corroborated by circumstances-The victim below 18 years of age cannot legally consent to sexual intercourse, thus, even if the act is consensual in fact, it constitutes rape u/s 376 IPC-The evidence of one witness turning hostile does not demolish the case if other prosecution witnesses remain consistent and reliable-It affirms that consent is immaterial in the case of a minor-the evidence of the prosecutrix can be the sole basis for conviction if found credible.(Para 1 to 32) The appeal is dismissed. (E-6)

Title: Rajesh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Sangeeta Chandra,Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I

English hearing

CRLA/16 /1986 Judgment/Order Date: 23-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 787

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302/149, 304 Part II/149, 325/149 & 323/149 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973- Section 313 - Appreciation of evidence of inimical and injured witnesses - While appreciating the testimony of the inimical witness closer scrutiny is required - Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC - Sudden fight without premeditation - Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner - Conversion of conviction from Section 302/149 IPC to Section 304 Part II/149 IPC - Appellants along with several others were charged for forming unlawful assembly and assaulting Shyam Lal when he resisted the grazing of accused's bullocks in his field. Trial court convicted all under Sections 302/149 IPC with life imprisonment besides conviction under Sections 325/149 and 323/149 IPC. On appeal, during pendency, the appeal abated for most accused and survived only for Sukh Ram and Bhupal. Prosecution relied on testimony of injured witnesses and medical evidence. Defence challenged delay in FIR, contradictions in witnesses' statements, and absence of specific proof as to who inflicted the fatal blow. Held : Court held that the testimony of inimical witnesses requires closer scrutiny but injured witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 were found reliable. Independent witness PW-5's presence was disbelieved. Medical evidence disclosed ten injuries on deceased of which only two were on vital parts, one fatal lathi blow on the head being responsible for death. From the appreciation of evidence on record it was found that the injury received by all the five injured were simple in nature whereas only one lacerated wound and one contusion was found on the head of the deceased Shyam Lal. All the accused except accused Sukh Ram were armed with lathi and Sukh Ram was armed with Kanta. There was only one incised wound on the person of the deceased which was not on the vital part. Prosecution not been able to successfully prove that the act of the accused was premeditated and that accused took undue advantage. Incident took place due to sudden fight. Prosecution not been able to prove that the offence committed by the accused falls under Section 302 IPC. The offence committed by the accused falls under Part II of Section 304 IPC. Prosecution failed to prove that there was an intention on the part of the accused to commit the murder of the deceased Shyam Lal because only one lacerated wound has been found on his head. A large number of persons assaulted the deceased by lathies and one lathi fell on the head of the deceased which proved fatal, therefore, the intention of causing death cannot be inferred. Prosecution failed to prove offence against surviving appellants Sukh Ram and Bhupal under Section 302/149 IPC. Considering that the incident occurred more than 40 years back and appellants had already undergone about two months' imprisonment, sentence reduced to period already undergone with fine of Rs. 25,000/- each payable to heirs of deceased. Conviction under Sections 325/149 and 323/149 IPC maintained but sentence modified to run concurrently. Appeal partly allowed. (Para 35, 38, 39) Allowed. (E-5)

Title: Sia Ram & Ors. Vs. State

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Vivek Kumar Birla,Jitendra Kumar Sinha

English hearing

CRLA/12 /2003 Judgment/Order Date: 09-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 775

HEADNOTE hearing

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(2)(v) - Rape and Caste-Based Offence - Appellant challenged conviction under Section 376 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act for raping a minor Scheduled Caste girl, sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with Rs. 5,000 fine and life imprisonment with Rs. 5,000 fine, respectively. Prosecution relied on victim's testimony, corroborated by informant (father), alleging forcible rape in an Arhar field. Appellant argued the victim was major, consented, and no caste- based motive existed, citing absence of injuries and medical findings of habitual intercourse. The court held the victim's testimony, supported by prompt FIR and informant's account, was reliable, and absence of injuries or spermatozoa did not negate rape, per St. of Rajasthan vs. Noore Khan and Prithichand vs. St. of H.P.. Victim's age was confirmed as 14 years 6 months via school records, negating consent, per St. of U.P. vs. Manoj Kumar Pandey. However, no evidence showed the rape was committed due to the victim's Scheduled Caste status, making Section 3(2)(v) inapplicable, per Dinesh @ Buddha vs. St. of Rajasthan. Conviction under Section 376 IPC upheld, sentence reduced to 7 years with fine enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000 considering appellant's age and time elapsed. Conviction under Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act set aside. Appeal partly allowed. (Paras 24-40) Appeal partly allowed.

Title: Sanjay Singh Vs. State of U.P.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Saumitra Dayal Singh,Sandeep Jain

English hearing

BAIL/12043 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 16-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 770

HEADNOTE hearing

A. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860- Sections 363, 366, 376(3)-Criminal Procedure Code,1973-Section 439 -The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act-2012 - Sections 5J(2), 5-L & 6 -Juvenile Justice( Care and Protection of children) Act,2015-Section 3(iv)-The applicant had eloped with a 13 year old girl-The victim stated in her statements u/s 161,164 and during her medical examination that she had gone with the applicant voluntarily, had married him, and had consensual physical relations resulting in pregnancy-No signs of force or injury were found-The applicant had sought declaration of juvenility supported by school records but the application was not decided by the trial court, and the applicant continued to remain in regular jail-The court expressed serious concern over this lapse, failure of the trial court to recognize and act on the applicant's juvenile status-The court granted bail, directed the trial court to expeditiously decide the juvenile status application- (Para 1 to 25) The application is allowed. (E-6)

Title: Arjun @ Golu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Subhash Vidyarthi

English hearing

BAIL/4923 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 12-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 762

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 363, 376-D, A, 506 & 392 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 5 (G)/6 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3 (2) (5) A - Issue before High Court is that informant 'X' challenged order dated 11.08.2023, whereby bail was granted to accused/applicants before Apex Court, claiming that 'X' was not given hearing and not made party to bail proceedings - Apex Court set aside said order, observed that mandatory requirements under both relevant Acts were not fulfilled - Present second bail applications filed seeking bail for accused-applicants - Apart from merits, it was argued that informant 'X' was personally served notice. She did not appear through counsel in one bail matter, while her counsel appeared in connected bail application - Statutory provisions as in Section 439(1A), Cr.P.C. and Section 15A(3), SC/ST Act has been complied by High Court, but victim has manipulated, mis-represented, and concealed material facts, documents before Apex Court and obtained order, which is gross misuse of process of Court and because of conduct of 'X' , accused/applicants languishing in jail. (Para 21, 22, 26) Applications allowed. (E-13)

Title: Khargesh @ Golu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Gautam Chowdhary

English hearing

WTAX/1603/2024 Judgment/Order Date: 29-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 713

HEADNOTE hearing

A. Criminal Law - Constitution of India,1950-Article 226-CGST Act-Sections 122 & 73/74-Petitioner challenged a show cause notice proposing a penalty of Rs. 2,735,113,681 u/s 122 (ii) and (vii) of CGST Act for alleged issuance of fake invoices and availing ITC without actual supply of goods-Proceedings under section 74 against the petitioner were dropped based on lack of evidence of tax evasion-Petitioner argued that section 122 is penal in nature and requires a criminal trial not departmental adjudication-Held, proceedings u/s 122 are independent and need not abate merely because proceedings u/s 74 are dropped because penalty u/s 122 is civil in nature, distinct from criminal prosecution u/s 132 of the Act-Mens rea (intention) in tax statutes does not necessarily convert proceedings into criminal trials-Hence, the writ petition was dismissed, and the penalty proceedings u/s 122 were allowed to continue.(Para 1 to 56) The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)

Title: M/s Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. Vs. Union Of India & Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Shekhar B. Saraf,Vipin Chandra Dixit

English hearing

WRIA/6273/2025 Judgment/Order Date: 15-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 711

HEADNOTE hearing

Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Succession Certificate - Requirement in case of rival claims - Validity of claim by children from two marriages. Held: Succession certificate is not mandatorily required in all cases of compassionate appointment. Where rival claims are set up by heirs from both the first and second wife, children born out of even void/illegal marriage are treated as legitimate under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and have equal right to be considered for compassionate appointment. Authority cannot exclude such children. Impugned order directing petitioner to obtain succession certificate quashed. Matter remanded to competent authority to assess rival claims under Rule 17 of the U.P. Dying-in- Harness Rules, 1974 and offer appointment to the most deserving dependent. Writ Petition allowed.

Title: Prince Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Ajit Kumar

English hearing

WRIA/5151/2023 Judgment/Order Date: 09-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 701

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: Dr. Sanjay Mittal Vs. Union Of India & Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: J.J. Munir

English hearing

SPLA/117 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 05-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 696

HEADNOTE hearing

A. Service Law - UP Education Service Selection Commission Act, 2023 - UP Higher Education Act, 1980 - Section 13(4) - Jurisdiction of Director - Selection list was prepared in furtherance of advertisement issued under old Act of 1980 - How far Director has jurisdiction to intimate the name of a candidate from such list for appointment in vacancy arisen after New Act - Held, the power available to the Director under the previous enactment, particularly, section 13(4) of the Act, 1980 would not be available to be exercised after the new Act of 2023 has come into effect - Once the new Act contains no power with the Director to fill up a substantive vacancy which has come into existence later, to be filled from a candidate selected in an earlier advertisement, the action of the Director would be without jurisdiction. (Para 15 and 17) Special Appeal dismissed. (E-1)

Title: Dr Manoj Kumar Rawat Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Ashwani Kumar Mishra,Praveen Kumar Giri

English hearing

CRLA/5215/2003 Judgment/Order Date: 09-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 679

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 & 307 - Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 - Sections 161 & 164 - Murder - PW-2, injured eye- witness was neither injured nor eye- witness - Injuries on right side of face of PW-2 could never occurred in incident, enormity was evident from F.I.R. itself - When four bullets fired from front and four of them exited from back, logical conclusion that PW-2 should have injured by one of bullets which exited from body of deceased - PW-2 throughout changing his version - He St.d immediately after incident he jumped off motorcycle, ran through sugar cane field, then reached police station along with PW-1 - Later St.d F.I.R was not lodged then he went to maternal uncle of deceased, accompanied him to police station where F.I.R lodged - Further St.d he had seen body being thrown from bridge into river - Improbable story, as he only heard about manner in which body disposed of but never seen actual disposal of dead-body, disappeared from scene immediately after incident started off to take place - F.I.R lodged much later as mentioned in St.ment of PW-1 and PW-2 wherein they St.d after good amount of conference between police personnel, first informant and elders of village, F.I.R lodged - Other witnesses never come to witness box - When evidence on basis of which four accused persons acquitted, it could not have been possible to convict other two on basis of same evidence - Entire story about assailants coming on jeep disbelieved. (Para 29) Appeal allowed. (E-13)

Title: Asif Ali Vs. State Of U.P.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Siddhartha Varma,Nand Prabha Shukla

English hearing

CRLA/1585 /1983 Judgment/Order Date: 28-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 659

HEADNOTE hearing

(A) Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Kidnapping and Murder of minor child for ransom - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 364 & 201 - Appeal against conviction - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 8, 27, 118 - Evidence re-scrutinized and re- appreciated - Last seen evidence - Recovery of dead body and clothes at instance of accused - Law relating to competency and credibility of child witness explained - Prompt lodging of missing report and FIR enhancing reliability - Motive not essential when chain of circumstances complete - Testimony of competent child witness can form sole basis of conviction - Circumstantial evidence established chain pointing to guilt of appellant - Conviction can be based on complete chain of circumstantial evidence leading to only one inference of guilt - Where minor child last seen with accused, who absconded, and dead body/clothes recovered at his instance, conviction sustainable even without proof of motive, if chain of circumstances complete and evidence inspires confidence.(Para-3, 35 to 40, 45,46,) Appellant, servant of complainant (PW-1), enticed 8-year-old boy - on pretext of giving old lottery tickets - boy last seen going towards canal with accused - missing report lodged same night - accused absconded - arrested next day with two others - on his pointing out, clothes recovered from bushes, dead body recovered from pond - post-mortem revealed death due to strangulation and drowning - two co-accused acquitted for want of identification. (Paras 4 to 14, 19, 23, 25, 33 to 34) HELD:- Prosecution proved complete chain of circumstances. Last seen evidence, recovery of dead body and clothes at accused's instance, post-conduct, and credible child witness left no hypothesis except guilt. Co-accused acquitted due to lack of identification. Conviction of appellant (kalloo) under Section 302, 364, and 201 IPC upheld. (Para - 35,39,40) Appeal dismissed. (E-7)

Title: Kalloo Vs. State of U.P.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Vivek Kumar Birla,Praveen Kumar Giri

English hearing

CRLA/1326 /2004 Judgment/Order Date: 28-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 654

HEADNOTE hearing

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304(ii) -Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304(ii) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Independent Witness not supporting prosecution fully - Not a ground to discard entire prosecution case - Conviction can be based on related witness if credible - FIR not an encyclopaedia of facts - FIR only corroborative, not substantive - Evidence of P.W.1 held reliable, corroborated by medical and post-mortem evidence - "Related witness" not automatically "interested witness" - Conviction sustainable based on testimony of related witness found to be truthful, supported by medical evidence and corroborative facts. (Para 2 to 20) FIR lodged on 22.12.1999 - alleging fatal assault by appellants - on the complainant's father with lathis due to prior enmity - victim sustained head injuries - died on 24.12.1999 - case converted from Section 308 to Section 304 IPC. (Para - 6, 7, 8) HELD: - Contention that the independent witness (P.W.4) did not support the incident is totally misconceived and not tenable as the incident has been proved by P.W.1, and time and place of incident proved by P.W.4 - Findings recorded by the trial court do not suffer from any illegality, error or perversity warranting interference - Conviction and sentence upheld. (Para -19,20) Appeal dismissed. (E-7)

Title: Shiv Narain & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Rajnish Kumar

English hearing

A482/19916/2024 Judgment/Order Date: 07-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 647

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 154 & 482 - U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act, 2021 - Sections 2, 3, 3(1), 4, 5, 5(1), 7, 10 & 11 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 170, 173, 175 & 528 - Indian Penal Code, 1860- Sections 419, 420 & 508 - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 25 & 25(1) - U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion (Amendment) Act, 2024 - Sections 4 - Application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. - assailing the entire Criminal Proceedings - based on confidential information, alleging that some individuals were inducing people to convert to Christianity by offering money and medical treatment - Police conducted raid - Search & Seizure operation - SHO lodged FIR - several individuals were apprehended, and materials related to religious conversion were seized - St.ments were recorded - charge sheet - The applicants taken plea that the S.H.O. is not an "aggrieved person" as defined by the Act, which limits the term to victims or their close relatives, and thus the FIR and subsequent proceedings are void ab initio - The core issue before the court is "whether the FIR registered by the Station House Officer under the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act, 2021 is valid, given the term "any aggrieved person" in Section 4 of the Act - court finds that, the 2024 amendment to the Act and relevant provisions of the BNSS, 2023 further clarified and expanded the scope of informants - court applying purposive interpretation and considering constitutional safeguards under Article 25, held that, (i) the term "any aggrieved person" includes the S.H.O., especially in cases of mass conversions involving coercion or fraud - and (ii) the FIR disclosed cognizable offences and did not warrant quashing under the Bhajan Lal guidelines - Accordingly, the application is dismissed - with liberty to the applicants to raise all defenses during trial, and since till date applicant has not been arrested by the police as such he shall not be taken into custody unless he fails to cooperate with proceedings. (Para - 10, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21) Application Dismissed. (E-11)

Title: Durga Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Vinod Diwakar

English hearing

WRIC/1000337/2015 Judgment/Order Date: 30-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 610

HEADNOTE hearing

(A) Administrative Law - Fair Price Shop License - Cancellation of license and principles of natural justice - Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Uttar Pradesh Schedule Essential Commodities Distribution Order, 2004 - Section 28(3) - Control Order, 2016 - Government Order dated 29.07.2004 - Doctrine of audi alteram partem - A fair price shop license is not a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) - Relationship between the State and a licensee is that of a principal and an agent - Inquiry for cancellation is summary in nature and requires adherence to the broad principles of natural justice, not a detailed, full-fledged inquiry akin to a departmental inquiry - State as principal may terminate agency contract subject to non-arbitrariness. (Para - 22, 28, 31, 44 to 47, 52, 53, 58) A fair price shop licensee's license was initially cancelled by the Sub Divisional Magistrate - which was later set aside on appeal for being ex parte - After a remand, the license was again cancelled - subsequent appeal was dismissed - leading to the instant writ petition. (Para - 2 to 14) HELD: - Adequate opportunity was granted to the petitioner, and there was no violation of the principles of natural justice. Inquiry was summary in nature and did not require a full- fledged departmental-style hearing. Petitioner was merely a licensee and did not have a fundamental right. Court found no reason to interfere with the orders of the Sub Divisional Magistrate and the appellate authority. State being the principal has the right to terminate the contract. (Para - 49,52,53,58,59) Petition dismissed. (E-7)

Title: Mohd. Mustkeem Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Jaspreet Singh

English hearing

WRIC/1000151/2001 Judgment/Order Date: 19-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 608

HEADNOTE hearing

(A) Revenue Law - Land dispute - right to fair hearing - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections 167/168 - Vesting of land under U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Validity of ex-parte orders without proof of service of notice on purchasers of land alleged to be hit by fragmentation provisions - An order affecting rights cannot be passed without proof of proper service of notice - absence of finding on service renders the order illegal and ex-parte - Failure to record a finding on the service of notice vitiates the proceedings - admission through non-filing of counter affidavit strengthens petitioner's claim - An order passed without recording a finding on the proper service of notice is illegal and liable to be set aside as ex-parte. (Para - 7 to 10) Petitioners, landless labourers, purchased land - orders under Ss. 167/168 U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act vesting land in State were passed ex-parte without proof of notice service - no rebuttal filed by respondents - leading to an ex-parte order that was affirmed in revision - hence petition. (Para - 3 to 4, 8 to 9) HELD: - Both the authorities below committed a mistake in recording no finding on service of notice upon the petitioners, and in view of the unrebutted statement that no notice was received, the impugned orders dated 31.3.1997 and 4.1.2001 were illegal and ex-parte in nature, and thus liable to be set aside. Respondent No. 2 was directed to pass a fresh order, with reasons regarding the service of notice, within six months. (Para - 8 to 12) Petition Allowed. (E-7)

Title: Mohammad Rafiq & Ors. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Admn. Gonda & Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Irshad Ali

English hearing

WRIC/7005 /2023 Judgment/Order Date: 16-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 578

HEADNOTE hearing

Civil Law - U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 - Applicability - Scope - The Act, 1939 applied to Agra and Oudh regions in respect of agricultural tenancies and connected matters - Act, 1939 stood repealed only in areas where Zamindari was abolished under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (rural areas) and the U.P. Urban Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1956 (urban areas) - In areas. Rural or urban, where Zamindari was not abolished (Non-Z.A. lands), the Act, 1939 continues to apply - Nothing in the Act, 1939 excludes its operation merely because the land falls within a Municipality, Town Area or Cantonment, and if such land answers to the definitions of "land" [S. 3(10)], "holding" [S. 3(7)] or involves "improvements" [S. 3(8)], the Act, 1939 governs it - Khataunis and Khewats of Non-Z.A. lands are prepared under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 and Land Records Manual, but tenancy/tenure rights are determined under the Act, 1939 - In present case, Plot No. 93, Jiamau, Lucknow, though within municipal limits since 1912, had for decades been treated as Non-Z.A. land, khataunis prepared from 1359 Fasli onwards, entries never challenged. In absence of requisite pleadings and proof, Court in writ jurisdiction cannot record finding that land in question ceased to be "land" or "holding" under Act, 1939 merely because it was part of municipal limits in relevant Faslis. (Para 25 - 53) B. U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 - Section 230 - Repeal - Section 230 of the Code, 2006 repeals the enactments specified in the First Schedule thereof which includes ZA Act, 1950, the Urban ZA Act, 1956 and the Act, 1901 - Saving under Section 230(2)�, repeal of such enactments shall not affect any other enactment in which such enactment has been applied incorporated or referred to. Held : Act, 1901 having been applied and referred to in Act, 1939, repeal of Act, 1901 by Section 230 of Code, 2006 does not affect its applicability in view of saving under Section 230(2)� - Registers under Act, 1939 to be maintained under Section 32 of the Act, 1901 and correction therein to be made under the Act, 1901 as there is no such provision in Act, 1939 - Code, 2006 does not repeal Act, 1939 in its application to Non-Z.A. land, hence Act, 1939 continues to apply to Non-Z.A. land the Act 1901 also continues to apply in the context of application of the said Act, 1939 to Non-Z.A. land - By Section 2 of the Code, 2006 except Chapters VIII and IX, rest of the provisions apply to the entire State including Non-Z.A. lands - Section 38 of the Code, 2006 dealing with corrections of errors or omission in records will apply to Non-Z.A. areas also. Exercise for correction of records in respect of old records and the existing records could still be undertaken under Section 38 of the Code, 2006 - Merely because orders dated 14.08.2020 and 22.03.2021 refer to the Act, 1901 would not invalidate them (Para 54 -58) C. U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 - Sections 33(2)(b), 38, 39 & 40-A - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 - Sections 38 & 39 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 35 - Scope of proceedings for correction of land records - Mutation entries - Whether confer title, right to possession, or extinguish the same - Held, revenue entries by themselves do not decide title, nor confer or deprive any person of title in respect of land - Corrections under S. 33(2)(b) of the Act, 1901 or S. 38 of the Code, 2006 not based on succession or transfer and by express provisos do not empower authority to decide dispute involving title - Mutation of land in revenue records does not create or extinguish title nor has presumptive value on title - Revenue records not documents of title - Even if entries in Record of Rights carry evidentiary value, same would not by itself confer title and presumption of correctness is rebuttable - Mutation entry in revenue records is only for fiscal purpose (Para 59 - 62) D. U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 - Section 39(2) - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 - Section 38 - Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1954 - Section12 - Suo motu power of correction of land records - Maintainability of action on application by Advocate for Gaon Sabha - Held, sub-S. (2) of S. 39 of the Act, 1901 and S. 38 of the Code, 2006 make it clear that such power of correction can be exercised suo motu on requisite information coming to knowledge of Revenue Authority - Information received by Sub- Divisional Magistrate was sufficient basis - Absence of Gaon Sabha Jiamau not relevant, could be corrected, including old records, or were required to be corrected, especially as, old villages exist within municipal limits even if there is no Gaon Sabha (Para 63) E. U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 - Sections3 3(2)(a), (b), 33(3), 39 & 227(5a) - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 - Sections 38(2), (3) - Mutation/Entries in khatauni - Requirement of order of competent authority - Held : No change can be recorded in the khatauni without an order of the Collector or of the Tehsildar or the Kanoongo - Even under Code, 2006 no mutation or change can be recorded in the khatauni without order of competent authority - If there is no order of competent authority to record a name in the khatauni, any such entry would be without legal basis. (Para 64) F. U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 - Sections 33 & 39 - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 - Sections 38 & 39 - Long standing entries in Record of Rights - Correction thereof - Held : Even long standing entries, if fraudulent, forged, without any basis or without order of competent revenue authority, without following procedure prescribed can be corrected - Entries without valid legal basis, made without following prescribed procedure or without order of competent authority, are liable to be corrected irrespective of period of continuance in revenue records - Such errors can also be corrected suo motu if authority comes to knowledge of same - However, such correction cannot be made without notice/opportunity of hearing to recorded person whose name is proposed to be struck off - Only such entries legally and correctly recorded after following prescribed procedure under order of competent authority can be termed genuine and carry rebuttable presumption of correctness - Entry in revenue record must have a legal basis and no title could be claimed on basis of a wrong entry, howsoever long standing - (Para 65 - 69) G. U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 - Sections 33 & 39 - U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 - Section 15(9) - Maintainability of writ petition - Mutation orders/correction of revenue records - Availability of alternative remedy of appeal/revision/recall - Held, Writ Court ordinarily does not entertain a writ petition challenging a mutation order or an order correcting the revenue records and entries therein except in exceptional circumstances, that too, at the behest of persons who were or are already recorded in the revenue records. (Para 70) H. U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 - Sections 33, 34 & 39 - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 - Sections 37 & 38 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Correction of entries in revenue records - Orders dated 14.08.2020 and 22.03.2021 - Effect - Scope of interference under Art. 226 - Held, entries in favour of Krishna Kumar Kalra and others in khatauni of 1369 and 1380 Fasli were without basis and rightly struck off by Sub-Divisional Magistrate - Restoration of entry of 1362 Fasli showing land as evacuee property in possession of Custodian was only a correction of records and did not amount to adjudicating title or divesting any person of rights - Such orders under Ss. 33/39 of Act, 1901 or S. 38 of Code, 2006 cannot be treated as conferring or extinguishing title; they are amenable to recall, appeal or revision - Petitioners if having valid sale certificates or title deeds are at liberty to assert their rights in appropriate proceedings, but such complicated questions of title and veracity of documents cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction - Mere striking off of names does not affect valid title or possession, if any, of petitioners - Denial of hearing under S. 34(5) to persons who had not reported succession/transfer held justified - Allegations of fraud/forgery of sale certificates cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings - No interference warranted under Art. 226, but liberty granted to petitioners to seek recall/appeal/revision or initiate regular proceedings - Orders impugned not to be treated as deciding title, right of possession or evacuee nature of property. (Para 71 - 108) I. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973- Section 15(9) - U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 - Sections 33 & 39 - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 - corresponding provisions - Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Show Cause Notices - Validity - Held, jurisdictional prerequisites for exercise of power under S. 15(9) are that permission was obtained by material misrepresentation or fraudulent statement or information - Fraud and misrepresentation are terms having definite legal connotation and not to be used casually - In present case, impugned notices dated 18.11.2020 issued by Lucknow Development Authority were based wholly on report dated 16.09.2020 of Sub Divisional Magistrate and order dated 14.08.2020 passed under Ss. 33/39 of Act, 1901 - Sub Divisional Magistrate has no power to decide title or to declare land as evacuee property, nor was there any finding that sale deeds and sale certificates relied upon by petitioners were forged or fabricated - Unless and until veracity of sale certificates is inquired into and proved to be forged or illegal, no action under S. 15(9) could be initiated - Notices being based on misconception of law and fact do not satisfy jurisdictional prerequisites and are liable to be quashed - Accordingly, show cause notices dated 18.11.2020 quashed - However, liberty reserved to Authority to proceed afresh, if cause so arises, in accordance with law. (Para 119 - 129) Allowed. (E-5)

Title: Abbas Ansari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Rajan Roy,Om Prakash Shukla

English hearing

WRIC/5205 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 12-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 576

HEADNOTE hearing

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950- Article 226-The petitioner challenged the recovery order dated 12.08.2024 and a consequential recovery notice dated 17.12.2024 issued by the Pollution Control Board without affording an opportunity of hearing or supplying inspection-related documents-violation of audi alteram partem-impugned order quashed- Authorities directed to furnish relevant documents, grant hearing and pass fresh reasoned order within eight weeks.(Para 1 to 8) The writ petition is disposed of. (E-6)

Title: M/s Ganpati Classic Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Shekhar B. Saraf,Yogendra Kumar Srivastava

English hearing

WRIC/4987/2025 Judgment/Order Date: 29-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 564

HEADNOTE hearing

Civil Law - U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 - Election Petitions - Sections 12-A to 12-H, 12-E(2), 13-A to 13-K, 19, 20 - Order 6 Rule 17 CPC - Petitioner contested the election of Chairman of Nagar Panchayat. After the counting petitioner was declared elected. Opposite Party No.1 filed an election petition on 29.05.2023. Petitioner filed written statement on 18.01.2024. An amendment application was filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC on 14.02.2024 - District Judge, allowed the amendment application. In election petition, the election of the petitioner was set aside and contestant at Serial No.2 was declared to have been elected. Held : Although there was laches in challenging the order of amendment passed on 08.07.2024, the court held that laches would not be fatal, as firstly there was no controversion to the challenge in the absence of any counter affidavit and secondly, all the interim orders merged in the final order being the order dated 21.05.2025, which was being challenged alongwith the earlier order dated 08.07.2024. Amendment application drastically changed the nature of the election petition; there being no such pleading in the initial election petition, the amendment could not have been allowed that too after the limitations for filing the petition had come to an end. As per S. 20 an election petition can be presented within 30 days after the day on which the result of the elections sought to be questioned is announced by the Returning Officer. Order impugned dated 21.05.2025 further suffers from the procedural error inasmuch as after the amendment, a specific issue to that effect ought to have been framed, which is non-existent; the specific issue with regard to the inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the electoral roll could be tested only after framing of specific issue to that effect and after allowing the parties to lead evidence, which has not been done. (Para 30, 31, 32, 33) Allowed. (E-5)

Title: Shitla Prasad Vs. Amrit Lal & Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Pankaj Bhatia

English hearing

WRIB/453/2025 Judgment/Order Date: 22-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 544

HEADNOTE hearing

Civil Law - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954, Rule 25-A) - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 54 - Registration Act, 1908 - Section 17 - Issues Involved : A. Whether ACO was/is empowered to transfer the rights in immovable property amounting of 'sale' in exercise of power under Rule 25-A of the Rules of 1954? B. Whether new rights could be created through compromise or conciliation by ACO in exercise of power under Rule 25-A of Rule of 1954 in favour of a person who was not having any right/interest in the land in dispute? C. Whether a transfer which was not valid transfer in terms of Rule 25-A of Rule of 1954, Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act 1882 (in short "Act of 1882) and Registration Act, 1908 (in short "Act of 1908) could be validated by depositing revenue in the Government Treasury? D. Whether the respondent no.2/Chandra Prakash Singh is entitled to benefit of Section 164 of the Act of 1950 ? Held - It is apparent from Section 54 of the Act of 1882 that an immovable property of a value exceeding one hundred rupees can only be transferred by way of registered deed/instrument in terms of the Act of 1908. If a person had no right under the statute any such right could not be recognised or admitted by a compromise or a new right could not be created through compromise or conciliation. Rule 25-A of Rule of 1954 indicates that dispute(s) related to tenure holder(s) pertaining to rights already in existence i.e. the rights available under the Act of 1950 or any other provision of law, could be recognised by lawful agreement or compromise by ACO in exercise of power under Rule 25-A of Rule of 1954 and the ACO under this rule was/is not empowered to provide new rights by way of agreement or compromise or conciliation. (Para 17, 19, 22) B. Dispute relates to Gata No. 748, originally recorded in the name of Ram Nayan Pandey; on 09.12.1983, the Assistant Consolidation Officer (ACO), exercising powers under Rule 25-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954, recognised an alleged oral transfer made by Ram Nayan Pandey in favour of respondent no. 2, Chandra Prakash Singh, and recorded him as having full rights over the land, though he was neither a co-tenure holder, nor a family member, nor possessed any statutory right under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950; the heirs of Ram Nayan Pandey, namely the petitioners, challenged the said order. The Consolidation Officer, by order dated 26.02.2024, again validated the oral transfer by directing Chandra Prakash Singh to deposit revenue on market value, which was set aside by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (SOC) on 03.03.2025, but in revision, the Deputy Director of Consolidation (DDC), by impugned order dated 30.04.2025, restored the CO's order, giving rise to the present writ petition seeking quashing of the DDC's order and protection from dispossession Held : ACO was not empowered to recognize the alleged oral transfer of land in dispute i.e. Gata No. 748 made by Ram Nayan Pandey in favour of respondent no.2/Chandra Prakash Singh. In creating new rights related to land in dispute i.e. Gata No. 748 vide order dated 09.12.1983 the ACO exceeded its jurisdiction and erred in law. ACO under this rule was/is not empowered to provide new rights by way of agreement or compromise or conciliation. Court held that the respondent no.2/Chandra Prakash Singh is not entitled to the benefit available under Section 164 of the Act of 1950 for the reason that no evidence was placed on record by the respndent no.2/Chandra Prakash Singh to establish positively the essential ingredients so as to attract Section 164 of the Act of 1950. Direction for validating a transfer of immovable property by ACO by depositing certain amount/revenue on the market value of the property in the Government Treasury is without any authority. Transfer which was not valid initially, cannot be validated by means of depositing certain amount in the Government Treasury. Order dated 30.04.2025 (Annexure No.1) is hereby set aside/quashed and the order dated 03.03.2025 passed by SOC is restored. (Para 23, 24, 26) Allowed. (E-5)

Title: Sambhu Prasad Pandey & Anr. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ayodhya & Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Saurabh Lavania

English hearing

WRIB/371/2025 Judgment/Order Date: 30-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 537

HEADNOTE hearing

Civil Law - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Sections 5, 12, 11(1) & 48 - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 157-A - Jurisdiction of consolidation authorities - Title over Abadi land - Scope of revisional power - Plot No. 17 recorded in name of Raghuni, was permitted to be transferred under S.5, U.P.C.H. Act. Raghuni executed sale deed in favour of petitioners. Petitioners application under S.12 for recording their names was rejected by Consolidation Officer directing plot be recorded as Abadi Class 6(2). On appeal, Settlement Officer of Consolidation allowed petitioners' claim, but in revision under S.48, Deputy Director of Consolidation set aside the appellate order holding sale deed void being hit by S.157- A of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and restored order of Consolidation Officer. Held : Consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to decide title of Abadi land. Their jurisdiction is limited to recording the nature of land as "Abadi" in revenue records; questions of title must be left to competent Civil Court Deputy Director of Consolidation exceeded revisional jurisdiction in adjudicating validity of sale deed and title of petitioners, as consolidation court cannot decide title about the abadi land. Court quashed the revisional order recording finding on sale deed and title. Order of Consolidation Officer declaring plot as Abadi Class 6(2) affirmed. Parties given liberty to approach Civil Court for adjudication of title. Writ petition partly allowed. Allowed. (E-5)

Title: Alakh Prasad @ Alakh Dev & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Chandra Kumar Rai

English hearing

WRIA/49169/2010 Judgment/Order Date: 14-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 531

HEADNOTE hearing

A. Service Law - Service Jurisprudence - Disciplinary Proceedings - Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, Rule 7(3) - Prolonged Unauthorized Absence - Principle of "Test of Prejudice" in Service Jurisprudence - Even if procedure prescribed is not strictly followed to award major punishment, the delinquent has to show how he is prejudiced - Punishment order is not vitiated unless the delinquent shows prejudice in defending himself properly and effectively, and if no prejudice is established, no interference is called for. (Para 11) B. Petitioner, an Assistant Teacher, charge-sheeted for prolonged unauthorized absence for a period of 5 years, without any information or application for leave - In inquiry petitioner was not able to produce any document which could explain his absence - Major penalty of dismissal was passed - Petitioner argued that no inquiry report was submitted - State argued that petitioner did not submit any reply to charge-sheet or show- cause notice despite publication in newspaper, and no explanation for absence was provided. Held: Even if procedure prescribed was not strictly followed, the delinquent has to show how he is prejudiced. It is not a case where oral evidence was required, the only requirement was that petitioner had to submit her explanation and reasons for her absence of 1220 days - Petitioner did not deny the allegation; there was substantial compliance with the principle of natural justice as she was given opportunity to submit her reply, however, no reply was submitted despite publication in newspaper - Petitioner did not deny her absence of 1220 days even vaguely, no document such as sanction of leave or application for leave or medical certificate was placed on record, therefore, there was no prejudice caused to her - Punishment not disproportionate, considering the nature of allegation. (Para 12, 13) Dismissed. (E-5)

Title: Smt. Krishna Kant Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

English hearing

WRIA/46867/2014 Judgment/Order Date: 06-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 525

HEADNOTE hearing

Service Law - Pension - U.P. Nagar Palika Non-Centralised Services Retirement Benefit Regulations, 1984 - U.P. Qualifying Services for Pension and Validation Act, 2021 - Reckoning of service rendered as Daily Wager towards qualifying service for pension. Petitioner, appointed as a daily wager in Nagar Nigam, in 1985, was illegally terminated in 1986. By award of Labour Court termination was set aside and his services were directed to be treated as continuous. He was reinstated, later regularized in 2006, and retired in 2019. His claim that entire service from 1985 be reckoned for seniority, pension and retiral benefits was rejected. Held : Only issue surviving post-retirement is whether entire service rendered by the petitioner as a Daily Wager is to be credited to his account to work out his pension or that period of time is to be reckoned towards his qualifying service alone in order to enable him to pension and other post-retiral benefits. Court held that service rendered outside the regular establishment can only be accorded weightage to the extent that it entitles the petitioner to grant pension and other post-retiral benefits. It cannot be added to his regular service to work out his pension and other post-retiral entitlement. Mandamus issued directing respondents to reckon petitioner's daily wage service from 19.02.1985 to 26.01.2006 as a Daily Wager for the purpose of qualifying service, though not counting those services for quantifying the entitlement either to pension or other post-retiral benefits for qualifying service towards pension; arrears with 6% interest directed to be paid within three months. (Para 15, 16) Allowed. (E-5)

Title: Suresh Chandra Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: J.J. Munir

English hearing

WRIA/17495/2024 Judgment/Order Date: 23-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 518

HEADNOTE hearing

Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Unauthorized Absence - Employee of Cooperative Bank - Incarceration in Jail pending trial in false NDPS case - Acquittal. Held: Where an employee was continuously incarcerated in judicial custody during the period alleged as unauthorized absence, the charge of misconduct cannot stand. Service of notices at his residential address, ignoring the fact of incarceration well within the employer's knowledge, is no valid service and vitiates the entire proceedings. Further, dismissal from service for such absence, despite honorable acquittal in the criminal case, is perverse, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Order of dismissal quashed. Petitioner directed to be reinSt.d with continuity and seniority; entitled to 50% back wages for the period of incarceration till reinSt.ment. Writ Petition Allowed.

Title: Vinod Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: J.J. Munir

English hearing

WRIA/14182 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 30-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 505

HEADNOTE hearing

Service Law - Recruitment - Character Verification - Criminal Case - FIR registered after application - Disclosure by candidate - Subsequent quashing on compromise - Collector's opinion mechanical - Duty to carefully evaluate antecedents - Scope of G.O. dated 28.04.1958 - Suitability not to be rejected mechanically on basis of mere FIR/charge-sheet - Non-availability of vacancy not bar - Relief by appointment against supernumerary post. Held: Where the petitioner had applied for police recruitment prior to registration of an FIR against him, and thereafter made full and bona fide disclosure of the pending case at the stage of verification, rejection of candidature on sole basis of such FIR/charge-sheet, without holistic consideration of antecedents as mandated under Government Order dated 28.04.1958, is arbitrary and unsustainable. A mechanical adverse opinion by Collector cannot form basis to deny appointment. Quashing of proceedings on compromise not by itself a disqualification. Non-availability of post due to passage of time or intervening recruitments cannot defeat accrued right; appointment may be made even against supernumerary post. Writ petition allowed; rejection order quashed; mandamus issued for reconsideration and appointment. Writ petition allowed.

Title: Vivek Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: J.J. Munir

English hearing

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

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

Headnote