WRIC/9298 /2021 Judgment/Order Date: 20-02-2025 (2025) 2 ILRA 704  

HEADNOTE hearing

Civil Law - Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Section 47-A - Deficiency of Stamp Duty - A big chunk of land was sub-divided into 37 small plots, having a common passage of 9 meters, which was duly approved by the Development Authority. The exit of the colony joined the main road. Petitioner purchased a residential plot situated on the 9-meter-wide internal road, but deficiency of stamp duty was imposed, treating the plot as if situated on the main road, merely because the larger chunk of land abutted the main road, and that too without any spot inspection. Held: Once a colony is approved by the Development Authority, the internal roads therein are also deemed approved and are to be maintained by the Authority thereafter. Once the sub- division and the common road have been approved by the Development Authority, the inference drawn that the petitioner's plot is situated on the main road has no legs to stand on. Merely because the road of the colony joins the main road, as stated above, will not entitle the authorities to charge the deficiency of stamp duty on the petitioner as compared to the first plot, which is adjacent to the main road. (Paras 8, 9) Allowed. (E-5)

Title: Birjesh Aggarwal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Piyush Agrawal

English hearing

WRIA/56331/2012 Judgment/Order Date: 05-02-2025 (2025) 2 ILRA 687  

HEADNOTE hearing

A. Service Law - Disciplinary proceedings - Punishment - Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 - Fundamental Rule 54-B - The most important feature about the decision of the Government to pay allowances for the period of suspension is that a decision in this regard has to be taken by the Disciplinary Authority, after giving a notice to the government servant and calling for his explanation within the period specified under Fundamental Rule 54 of the Financial Hand Book. Here, admittedly, no notice was served upon the petitioner, calling for his explanation by the Disciplinary Authority as to why for the period of his suspension from service, nothing towards his emoluments be paid, except the subsistence allowance that he had received. (Para 26) B. Rule 5 of the Rules of 1999 - It says that for the period of suspension after notice to the employee, a decision shall be taken by the Disciplinary Authority, whether the period of suspension shall be treated as one spent on duty or not. But, that power may not entirely apply in this case. In any case, even if there were such a power in the Disciplinary Authority, it has to be exercised reasonably; not capriciously. (Para 31) C. The decision to discount the entire period of time that the petitioner remained out of service on account of the order of dismissal passed by the respondents and since quashed by this Court in the earlier writ petition, is not one of the penalties envisaged under the Service Rules; to be specific the eight penalties enumerated in Rule 3 of the Rules of 1999. Therefore, this deprivation, inflicted upon the petitioner, not being one of the enumerated penalties, going by the salutary principle that no order, visiting a person with adverse civil consequence, ought be made without a reasonable opportunity of hearing to him, the order would be bad for want of notice and opportunity. D. If Rule 5 of the Rules of 1999 has any bearing on the issue proprio vigor or by analogy, before a deprivation of this kind for the period of dismissal was brought upon the petitioner, it was incumbent to issue notice to him in this regard and hear him on the point. This has admittedly not been done. This devastating prejudicial measure, a part of the impugned order, has come together with the order of punishment of reduction to the lowest stage in the time scale awarded to the petitioner with this Court granting liberty to the respondents to award a lesser penalty, instead of dismissal earlier ordered. If at all any kind of a measure prejudicial to the petitioner's interest, apart form the penalty imposed under the Rules, were to be taken by the respondents, it had to be with due notice and opportunity to the petitioner, afforded separately. (Para 32) E. Violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution - Apart from this part of the order being bad on account of want of notice and opportunity to the petitioner, the order is utterly arbitrary, capricious and whimsical. It is found that the penalty of dismissal from service earlier awarded to be shockingly disproportionate. The penalty of dismissal was regarded too severe by this Court and that judgment of the Court was accepted by the respondents without invoking any appellate procedures. If the respondents had not erred in passing an order of dismissal from service for a relatively trivial misconduct, the petitioner would have continued in service, suffering some minor penalty. There would be continuity in service for him, which would at least preserve his seniority and contribute to his post retiral benefits. In one stroke of pen, the petitioner has been deprived of all these benefits by this part of the order impugned. It is beyond any standard of reasonableness or fairness why an employee, who is held by this Court to have been awarded a shockingly disproportionate terminal punishment for a relatively trivial misconduct with a direction to award a lesser punishment, upon reinSt.ment would loose the benefit of continuity in service, including seniority and reckoning of the period of service for the purpose of post retiral benefits. This part of the order, to the clear understanding of the Court, given the circumstances that the petitioner's dismissal from service was regarded as shockingly disproportionate, is both arbitrary and unfair. (Para 33) The impugned order dated 19.07.2012, to the extent it punishes the petitioner, is hereby quashed. (Para 35) Writ petition allowed. (E-4) This writ petition assails an order passed by the Joint Commissioner (Commercial Tax), holding charge of the Deputy Commissioner (Administration), Commercial Tax, Noida dated 19.07.2012 to the extent it punishes the petitioner after disciplinary proceedings.

Title: Sripal Giri Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

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

English hearing

WRIA/16401 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 11-02-2025 (2025) 2 ILRA 675  

HEADNOTE hearing

A. The petitioner challenged the order dated 16.08.2024 which assigned him Booth Level Officer (BLO) election duties- Held, Authorities must review and revise the deployment of teachers for election duties-Teachers should only be appointed if all other categories (Patwaris, Panchayat Secretaries etc.) are exhausted-until review, the petitioner must perform duties only on holidays or after school hours. (Para 1 to 42) The writ petition is disposed of. (E-6)

Title: Surya Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Ajay Bhanot

English hearing

WRIA/12905 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 11-02-2025 (2025) 2 ILRA 668  

HEADNOTE hearing

(A) Service Law - Pension - Bank of Baroda (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 - Regulation 41 - Commutation - The Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 - Rule 10 A - Restoration of commuted pension - Doctrine of Estoppel - Wednesbury Unreasonableness - Matters related to commutation of pension are complex affairs involving vexed issues traversing diverse fields, requiring specialized expertise - In such matters, the Court would venture only in cases of manifest and apparent arbitrariness. (Para -13) Petitioner (retired employee of Bank of Baroda) challenged - validity of a note appended to Regulation 41 of the Bank of Baroda (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 - which mandates a 15-year period for the restoration of commuted pension - petitioner argued - commuted amount had already been set off in 9.81 years, making the remaining deductions unjust enrichment. (Para - 2,3,4) HELD: - Petitioner voluntarily accepted the commutation scheme in 2013 and is now estopped from challenging it. 15-year restoration rule is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable and has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Common Cause case. Provision does not amount to unjust enrichment, and no interference is warranted. (Para -13,19) Petition dismissed. (E-7)

Title: Dan Bahadur Yadav Vs. Managing Director And Ceo Bank of Baroda Corporate Center Mumbai & Ors.

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

English hearing

WRIA/11079 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 10-02-2025 (2025) 2 ILRA 662  

HEADNOTE hearing

A. Service Law - Retirement - Determination of date of birth - Uttar Pradesh Recruitment to Services (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974 - Rules 2 & 3 - For a government servant, who is not a matriculate or the holder of an equivalent certificate for the determination of his DOB, the DOB recorded in the service book at the time of entry into service by mandate of Rule 2 has to be deemed as his correct DOB for all purposes, which include superannuation. Rule 2 of the Rules of 1974 is unequivocal, in that, that certificates of education below that of the high-school or an equivalent certificate are irrelevant for the purpose of a determination of a person's age. (Para 17) B. Words and Phrases - 'deemed' - The employment of the expression "deemed" in the context of Rule 2 is of profound relevance. (Para 17) It is for the purpose of curtailing controversy related to age of non-matriculate employees in the lower grades of government servants, assuming that there would be no dependable testimonial about it, the statute raises a fiction that the DOB or age recorded in the service book at the time of entry into service shall be deemed to be correct for all purposes u/Rule 2, which includes superannuation. No other evidence about such a non-matriculate employee's DOB is, therefore, to be let in or examined at all. (Para 17) Since there is no cavil about the issue that the petitioner's DOB, that was originally recorded, was 20.02.1967, and later on changed on the basis of the notarial affidavit dated 09.01.2012 furnished by the petitioner, the change is clearly in the teeth of Rule 2 of the Rules 1974. Moreover, by virtue of Rule 3, the Rules of 1974 have overriding effect over all other rules. The petitioner's DOB originally recorded in his service book, to wit, 20.02.1967, has to be regarded as his correct and immutable DOB. (Para 17, 18) Writ petition allowed. (E-4) Present petition assails office memo dated 13.05.2024 and the order dated 03.07.2024, directing the petitioner's retirement on 31.08.2024, upon attaining the age of superannuation. Both these orders have been made by the Works Manager, Irrigation Workshop Division, Meerut.

Title: Jagbeer Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

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

English hearing

WRIA/3770 /2023 Judgment/Order Date: 04-02-2025 (2025) 2 ILRA 648  

HEADNOTE hearing

(A) Service Law - Government Employment - Merger - Seniority and Promotion - Challenge to the validity of the Employees of Entertainment Tax Department (Service Cadres of Officers, Inspectors, and Other Employees) in the related Cadres of Commercial Tax Department - Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rule 7 - The U.P. Government Servant Seniority Rules, 1991 - Clause 4(h) - 'substantive appointment' - Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section 174 , Uttar Pradesh Merger Rules, 2022 - Rule 2, Rule 3(3), Rule 3(4), Rule 4(4), Rule 4(5), Rule 4(7), The Constitution of India - Article 311 - Change in chances of promotion does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution - Judicial review of government policy decisions is limited and should not interfere unless the policy is arbitrary, irrational, or unconstitutional - Merger of employees into a new department is a policy decision of the government and cannot be challenged unless it violates statutory or constitutional provisions - Seniority and promotion are subject to the new rules of the merged department. (Para - 47 to 56) Petitioners were originally appointed as Entertainment Tax Inspectors - later promoted to higher positions - U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act repealed the U.P. Entertainment and Betting Tax Act - Entertainment Tax Department was abolished - State Government merged employees into Commercial Tax Department through a policy decision - petitioners were placed at the bottom of seniority list in their respective cadres of Commercial Tax Department under Merger Rules - challenged placement - ground - arbitrary, violated Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution - affected their promotional prospects - State Government contended - only employees of Entertainment Tax Department merged into Commercial Tax Dept. and not posts of Entertainment Tax Dept. - seniority had to be determined under new cadre rules of Commercial Tax Department.(Para - 33 to 48) HELD: - Merger Rules, 2022, are upheld as valid and do not violate Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution. Placement of the petitioners in the Merger Rules, 2022 is a part of policy decision and the petitioners have no locus to question the policy decision taken by the State Government. Substantive appointment and promotions of petitioners shall be considered from 21.07.2022 instead of 24.04.2018. (Para - 45,48,49,56) Petition dismissed. (E-7)

Title: Jai Prakash Chand & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.

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

English hearing

SPLA/459 /2023 Judgment/Order Date: 13-02-2025 (2025) 2 ILRA 635  

HEADNOTE hearing

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 14, 19, 19(1)(a), 21 & 226 - Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952- Chapter VIII - Rule 5, - U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 - Chapter - III, XII, Regulation - 7, 40, 40(b) & 40(c)- Intra Court Appeal - assailing the validity of judgment and order passed by Single Judge - Writ Petition - writ petitioner Md. Sameer Rao was earlier known as Shahnawaz - who has cleared High School & Intermediate Board in year 2013 and 2015 respectively - by means of an application in year 2020 based upon some newly issued Adhar Card & PAN card in the name of Md. Sameer Rao and also a gazette notification approached to Board to incorporate his new name in High School & Intermediate Certificates and issue a new certificates - Board rejected his request being time barred - writ petition - single judge set aside the impugned order - instant appeal - court finds that, the learned Single Judge has held Regulation 40(c) as arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of India - further, various other directions have also been issued like surrender of public documents of identity like Adhar card, Ration card, Driving Licence, Passport, Voter I.D. card etc. to the competent authorities with a direction to them to register the change of name, dispose off or destroy the earlier identity documents as per law and issue fresh documents consistent with his changed name - and - Learned Single Judge has also issued a direction to the Secretary, Ministry of Home, Government of India and the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Lucknow to create appropriate legal and administrative framework to ensure that both Governments work in concert to achieve the end of making identity related identity documents removing anomalies therein -- held, (i) in fact, these are policy matters exclusively in legislative/ executive domain and on factual matrix of the matter, the writ petitioner had no case on merits, - (ii) in view of specific administrative order, the jurisdiction to read down or hold any regulation as arbitrary, unconstitutional and/or violative of fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution only vests with the division bench in appropriate cases - hence, judgment of the learned single judge cannot be sustained - Special Appeal stands allowed - writ petition dismissed, accordingly. (Para - 31, 32, 35) Special Appeal Allowed. (E-11)

Title: State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Md. Sameer Rao & Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Arun Bhansali,Kshitij Shailendra

English hearing

WRIC/1000097 /1995 Judgment/Order Date: 19-02-2025 (2025) 2 ILRA 631  

HEADNOTE hearing

(A) Revenue Law -U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections 331 & 333 - Maintainability of second appeal -appeal cannot be converted into revision - conversion of second appeal into revision held to be without jurisdiction - Appeal cannot be converted into revision under Section 333 of the Act - such conversion is illegal and unsustainable. (Para - 24 to 26) Petitioners, in continuous possession since the zamindari period - declared Seerdars under Section 12 - order attained finality as no appeal was filed - later declared Bhumidars with transferable rights under Section 229-B - affirmed in appeal - belated review was dismissed - second appeal was illegally converted into revision by the Board of Revenue - leading to the present writ petition challenging the impugned order. (Para - 4 to 18 ) HELD: - Appeal could not be converted into revision. Board of Revenue's order suffered from apparent illegality and was unsustainable in law. Second appeal was filed but was wrongly converted into revision, which was impermissible. Hence, the impugned order suffered from illegality and was liable to be set aside. (Para - 25,26) Petition allowed. (E-7)

Title: Shiv Balak Singh & Anr. Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors.

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

English hearing

WRIC/33222/2023 Judgment/Order Date: 07-02-2025 (2025) 2 ILRA 628  

HEADNOTE hearing

A. Civil Law -Constitution of India,1950- Article 226-Urban Land(Ceiling and Regulation) Act,1976 & 1999(Repeal)- Section 3-The petitioner challenged the interference by the state of up and bareilly development authority with its possession over a piece of land declared surplus under the Act,1976-The petitioner contended that actual physical possession had never been taken by the State and hence, it was entitled to the protection u/s 3 of the Repeal Act,1999-mere symbolic possession does not amount to actual possession and that de jure vesting u/s 10(3) of the Act is not sufficient to extinguish the rights of the holder without actual physical dispossession u/s 10(5) or 10(6)-Finding no evidence of peaceful or forceful dispossession by the state, the court held that the petitioner retained possession of the land and was entitled to the benefit of the Repeal Act-Hence the impugned order was quashed and writ of mandamus was issued to restrain the respondents from interfering with the petitioner possession.(Para 1 to 9) The writ petition is disposed of. (E-6)

Title: Span Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

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

English hearing

WRIC/28993 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 10-02-2025 (2025) 2 ILRA 627  

HEADNOTE hearing

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950- Article 226- Clause 8.5.6 of Marketing Discipline Guidelines,2012-delay in issuance of show cause notice-mandatory nature of time limit-the petitioner challenged a show cause notice issued beyond permissible period of 30 days from the date of sample test results, as prescribed in Guidelines 2012-The court observed that the said clause mandates issuance of notice within 30 days-in the present case, no valid explanation was provided for the delay of over two months- the impugned show cause notice was quashed and liberty was granted to the respondents to conduct a fresh inspection in accordance with law.(Para 1 to 7) The writ petition is disposed of. (E-6)

Title: Gyanendra Kumar Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.

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

English hearing

WRIC/26640 /2021 Judgment/Order Date: 24-02-2025 (2025) 2 ILRA 612  

HEADNOTE hearing

(A) Urban Development and Administrative Law - Challenge to the inaction of NOIDA Authority and claim for multiple reliefs relating to Sports City-II Scheme - Constitution of India - Article 243Q - Lead Member -Consortium - Zero Period - Integrated Township Project - Once the lead member opted out and ceased to hold the minimum mandated shareholding of 30%, it lost the right to seek any relief under the Scheme.(Para - 60) Sports City-II Scheme launched by NOIDA in 2011 for integrated development of sports and ancillary facilities in Sectors 78, 79 & 150 - Land allotted to consortium led by petitioner - Sub- division approved at petitioner's request - Petitioner subsequently opted out - Despite holding no share or stake, petitioner sought reliefs including extension of Zero Period, approval of revised Master Plan, enhancement of FAR, and Rs. 200 crore compensation -hence petition. (Paras 2 to 19) HELD: - Petitioner having opted out of the project and holding no share or interest in the development of Sports City, has no locus standi to file the writ petition. Reliefs claimed including rescheduling of dues, FAR enhancement, and compensation cannot be granted in writ jurisdiction. (Paras - 60, 63 to 66) Petition dismissed. (E-7)

Title: M/s Xanadu Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P.& Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,Prashant Kumar

English hearing

WRIC/21238 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 24-02-2025 (2025) 2 ILRA 561  

HEADNOTE hearing

(A) Constitutional Law - Corporate Insolvency & Fraud - Urban Planning and Development / Real Estate - Insolvency and Bankruptcy - Revalidation of Map - Insolvency Resolution Process (IRP) - Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 254 - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Sections 7, 14, 29A , 65 & 238 - The Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Amendment), 2018 ,U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 - The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Sub- Clause (p), (u), (v), (y) and (za) of Clause 2 of Chapter I - Doctrine of Repugnancy - Moratorium - Reverse CIRP as Abuse of Process - Fraudulent Insolvency - Integrated Project Obligations - Public Interest & Fraud Prevention - Consortium Liability - Doctrine of Piercing Corporate Veil - In the event of a conflict between the Union law and a State law in concurrent field, the former prevails over the latter - Orders of NCLT/NCLAT passed under IBC, 2016 override decisions of State Authorities under U.P. Industrial Area Development Act - Reverse CIRP cannot be invoked to bypass liabilities in cases of fraudulent insolvency engineered to evade dues and obligations under an integrated project. (Para - 45 to 49, 120 to 123 ,136 ) NOIDA launched a Sports City Scheme in 2011 - Petitioner, a consortium member, was allotted land - Sub-divisions and lease deeds were executed - After failure to deliver the project, homebuyers filed insolvency against petitioner - Reverse CIRP was initiated under NCLT/NCLAT orders - IRP and stakeholders sought map revalidation from NOIDA - which was refused citing Board resolutions and CAG report - petition was filed challenging the refusal. (Para - 2 to 28) HELD: - Orders passed by the NCLT and NCLAT have to be complied with and Noida Authority cannot raise any objection or create any hindrance in compliance of the order. Reverse CIRP is inapplicable in cases of fraudulent insolvency designed to evade dues and project obligations. Corporate veil of the companies pushed into insolvency can be lifted to prosecute the directors for committing fraud for syphoning funds and neglecting integrated project duties. NOIDA's refusal to revalidate maps is justified given the fraud and CAG findings. (Para -50,120 to 123 ,136) Petition disposed of. (E-7)

Title: M/s Sequel Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,Prashant Kumar

English hearing

WRIC/10671/2024 Judgment/Order Date: 13-02-2025 (2025) 2 ILRA 535  

HEADNOTE hearing

A. Environmental Law - Cancellation of authorization - Slaughter house - Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The law does not compel a man to do that which he cannot possibly perform. The order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to prepare an index of the relevant laws for circulation to all the concerned so that the management of slaughtering the animals and slaughter house should be done more efficiently, can by no stretch of imagination be interpreted in a manner that the requirements of all the 24 laws mentioned in the compendium have to be fulfilled before establishment of a slaughter house. (Para 64, 66) B. By mere supersession of an earlier GO a subsequent GO, would not become effective retrospectively and any GO issued by the St. has a prospective application. The GO dated 07.07.2017 does not nullify the no objection certificate dated 21.05.2015 granted by the District Level Committee, the no objection certificate dated 21.10.2016 granted by the St. Level Committee and the C.T.E. dated 04.01.2017 issued by the U.P. Pollution Control Board. (Para 67, 68) C. The judgment rendered by a coordinate bench in an earlier Writ Petition would be binding as a precedent on subsequent benches in respect of the points raised and decided in the earlier judgment. But will not operate as a binding precedent in respect of the points which have not been decided therein. The scope and effect of the GO dated 07.07.2017 and its prospective operation has not been decided in the judgment dated 31.05.2023. Therefore, the aforesaid judgment will not be a binding precedent in respect of the points which have not been decided in that judgment and it will not restrain this Court examining the issues raised in this Writ Petition. (Para 71) The petitioner's applications for grant of C.T.O. were rejected repetitively and ultimately Writ-C No. 4368 of 2022 filed by it challenging the validity of rejection order dated 11.07.2020 was also dismissed by means of an order dated 31.05.2023 without deciding the questions whether the GO dated 07.07.2017 had retrospective effect and whether the requirements of all the 24 sets of laws indexed in the GO dated 07.07.2017 could be complied with before grant of C.T.O. to the industry. (Para 74) The subject matter of the earlier Writ Petition was an order refusing to grant CTO, whereas the subject matter of the instant Writ Petition is an order revoking the C.T.O. granted to the petitioner. The issue involved in the previous Writ Petition was regarding legality of an order refusing to issue the C.T.O. whereas the issue involved in the instance Writ Petition is regarding the validity of the order revoking the C.T.O. granted to the petitioner. D. The bar of res-judicata is attracted when the matter directly and substantially in issue in a case has been finally decided by the Court in a former proceeding. The issues involved in the present Writ Petition and the previous Writ Petition are not the same, so as to attract bar of res-judicata. (Para 70) E. The Fundamental Right under Article 19 (1) (g) to carry on any occupation, trade or business is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by any law made by the St.. It can only be regulated by a law made by the St. and it cannot be taken away by a mere GO, more so, when the same cannot have any retrospective operation. This aspect was not considered by this Court in the judgment and order dated 31.05.2023 passed in Writ-C No. 4368 of 2022. (Para 79, 80) F. U.P. Pollution Control Board has no authority to direct the petitioner to obtain a revalidated no objection certificate. The U.P. Pollution Control Board has jurisdiction under the Air Act and the Water Act to pass appropriate orders to control air and water pollution only. It has no authority to pass any order regarding any subject which is not concerned with the air and water pollution. The authority which had granted the no objection certificate dated 21.05.2015 is the District Magistrate, who has not revoked the no objection certificate and who has not directed the petitioner to get the no objection certificate revalidated, of which there is no requirement as per the GO dated 07.07.2017 as well. (Para 82, 83) G. The opposite parties have treated the petitioner with hostile discrimination in revoking the C.C.A granted to the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner had not submitted a revalidated no objection certificate - The petitioner was granted C.C.A. after successful trial run of the industry. However, its commercial operations could not commence because it has established an export oriented industry which is mandatorily required to be registered with Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA). The inspection of a fully operational plant by the officers of APEDA is necessary for registration of the petitioner with the aforesaid authority. Attachment of a veterinary doctor from the department of animal husbandry at the petitioner's industry is necessary as per the provisions contained in a GO dated 13.01.2016. Although the Animal Husbandry Department had attached a veterinary doctor to the petitioner's industry vide order dated 27.12.2024, this order was cancelled by means of another order dated 31.12.2024 and the petitioner could not get itself registered with APEDA for want of attachment of a government veterinary doctor. It is not the case that the petitioner is not operating the industry, but the authorities are not permitting the petitioner to run the industry by creating obstacles in its operation. (Para 85, 86) The impugned order has been passed by the U. P. Pollution Control Board in disregard to the St.'s policy to promote industries in the St. so as to increase the opportunities of employment and attract inflow of foreign currency to the St.. It has been passed in utter disregard to the MOU dated 22.02.2018 entered into by the Hon'ble Governor of the St. agreeing to facilitate the establishment of the industry. (Para 88) Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Title: M/s Al-Haq Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

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

English hearing

CRLA/659/1984 Judgment/Order Date: 25-11-2024 (2025) 1 ILRA 120  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section - 313 - Indian Penal Code,186 - Sections - 147, 148, 149, 302 & 307- Appeal - against conviction & sentence - FIR - offence of murder - investigation - PMR - site plant - charge-sheet - plea taken that they were falsely implicated due to enmity - conviction & sentence - court finds that - (i) during pendency of appeal out of 8 accused persons 6 were died therefore against them appeal had abated, (ii) pw-1 who was an injured witness was not there on spot, (iii) there was an enmity between the injured and accused persons, (iv) pw-1 had not informed the first informant about incident himself, (v) pw-1 was such a witness who could not be absolutely relied upon for the purpose of convicting the accused, (vi) surviving both appellants were carrying lathies were not armed in such a manner as would make it evident that they had gone with a premediated mind to do away with the deceased - court inclined to hold that, Conviction of the accused persons could not be based on the testimony of an eye-witness who was not believable -- hence, appeal succeeds and is allowed - conviction and sentence is set aside - direction issued, accordingly. (Para - 11, 13, 14, 15) Criminal Appeal Allowed. (E-11)

Title: Iqbal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Siddhartha Varma,Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi

English hearing

WRIC/10598/2024 Judgment/Order Date: 19-02-2025 (2025) 2 ILRA 528  

HEADNOTE hearing

A. Civil Law -Constitution of India,1950- Article 226, 14 &19(1)(g)-Drugs and Cosmetics Act,1940-Section 23 - Rules,1945-Cancellation of Drug Licence- Improper Sampling -Show cause notice Deficiency-The petitioner challenged the cancellation of its retail drug licence and the dismissal of its statutory appeal-The court held that the sampling process violated the mandatory provisions of section 23 of the Act,1940 as only one sample was drawn instead of required three or four-the second show cause notice failed to propose cancellation or allege that the petitioner was the manufacturer of the substandard drug-the final order, presumed illegal manufacture by the petitioner without supporting evidence or confrontation with contradictory distributor replies-the court held that this violated the petitioner's rights under Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and was a clear breach of Rule 66 of the ,Rules 1945-consequently, both the cancellation and appellate orders were quashed and the petitioner's licence was restored.(Para 1 to 21) The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)

Title: M/s Shree Shanker Medicals Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

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

English hearing

WRIC/7948/2019 Judgment/Order Date: 19-02-2025 (2025) 2 ILRA 526  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Law - THE ARMS ACT, 1959 - Section 17(1)(b) - The licensing authority may by order in writing revoke a licence if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to revoke the licence - District Magistrate, cancelled the arms licence on account of misuse of weapon by threatening the police. F.I.R. in respect of the same incident lodged. In the said criminal case charge sheet submitted against the petitioner and charges framed. Criminal case pending against the petitioner. Held : Findings recorded in the criminal case may have an important bearing with regard to the cancellation of arms licence of the petitioner as the present proceedings are summary proceedings. However, in the trial if the petitioner is convicted, the same may fortify the stand taken by the State for cancellation of arms licence. However, the acquittal order would also equally effects the cancellation of the arms licence. Defence of the petitioner qua the cancellation of the arms licence was required to be proved by the petitioner by leading evidence. Petitioner did not lead any evidence, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has not misuse the firearm. It was also not demonstrated that the report of the Senior Superintendent of Police, was incorrect. No error in the impugned order. (Para 9, 11) Dismissed. (E-5)

Title: Sanjeev Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Vikram D Chauhan

English hearing

WRIC/3948 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 19-02-2025 (2025) 2 ILRA 524  

HEADNOTE hearing

(A) Constitutional Law - Victim Compensation - Non-payment of additional compensation to acid attack victim - Prime Minister National Relief Fund - Executive Directions - Authorities required to fulfill their primary duty to serve the people, especially ones who have been disabled by egregious acts of violence - State Government directed to issue a circular to all the District Magistrates to ensure that delay of such nature is not repeated in future - Lackadaisical approach - incompetency and lack of compassion - war footing - Authorities directed to ensure payment of additional compensation to acid attack victim within stipulated time. (Para -6,7, 8) Petitioner, a victim of acid attack in 2013 - received certain compensation but not the additional compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- payable under the Prime Minister National Relief Fund - Despite instructions from the Union of India, no response was given by the District Magistrate regarding the required proforma and documents. (Para - 2 to 7) HELD: - Court directed the authorities to ensure prompt payment of additional compensation by the Union of India to the petitioner and mandated the State Government to issue a circular to all District Magistrates to prevent future delays. (Para - 6 to 8) Petition disposed of. (E-7)

Title: Rajneeta Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.

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

English hearing

WRIB/4491 /1999 Judgment/Order Date: 17-02-2025 (2025) 2 ILRA 518  

HEADNOTE hearing

Civil Law - U.P. Land Revenue Act,1901 - Name recorded in revenue records-Order passed to record the disputed plot in the name of the Gram Sabha-Revision filed by Petitioner- allowed stating that the Consolidation Officer's order has attained finality- opposite party filed a revision before the Board of Revenue - set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner -that the Commissioner cannot allow the revision rather he can make reference to the Board of Revenue for allowing or dismissing the revision-exercise of jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner is in accordance with law-amendment made in U.P. Land Revenue Act by U.P. Act No.XX of 1997 - the date of enforcement of amendment is 18.8.1997 and revision in the instant matter has been filed on 3.11.1997 - no illegality to decide the revision on merit rather to make reference before the Board of Revenue. W.P. allowed. (E-9)

Title: Lalsa Yadav Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors.

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

English hearing

WRIA/19167/2024 Judgment/Order Date: 20-02-2025 (2025) 2 ILRA 509  

HEADNOTE hearing

A. Administrative Law - Role and responsibility of State and Society - The families of defence personnel cannot be abandoned or left to their own devices by the State. The sacrosanct promise of the State and the pious duty of State officials is thus to ensure the safety, well being and welfare of families of service personnel who are separated due to exigencies of military service. (Para 15) The State authorities/local administrations have to ensure that any communication sent by a serving military officer/formation commander/Commanding Officer in regard to harassment or other problems or welfare issues being faced by the family members of defence personnel posted elsewhere are promptly attended to and efficaciously redressed by the competent State authorities. True also for family members of those military personnel who embrace martyrdom in the line of duty. For this purpose a system of accountability also has to exist in the State Government. (Para 17) B. The deficiencies in the existing system of grievance redressal - A proper system has to be put in place and made to function to meet the demands of emergent situation. Various GOs dated 17.09.2008, 30.03.2015, 06.05.2015 and 30.06.2016, which direct the local administration to promptly response to grievances of defence personnel have been brought in the record by the State. (Para 21) The aforesaid system of GOs is clearly inadequate and not delivering the desired results. The infirmities in the existing system are these. There is no oversight of a High Powered State Level Committee. Proper representation of military authorities is absent. Meetings of civil administration and military authorities are not held with prescribed regularity. There is no accountability in the functioning of the said committees. (Para 22) C. Inter Services Coordination - The three services shall establish full inter services coordination for the securing the welfare of the separated families of serving personnel. Concert in peace is precursor to synergy in war. The three services shall create proper SOPs for sending the representations /complaints of various serving armed forces personnel through their Commanding Officers to the concerned committees. All Commanding Officers and service personnel in the country be duly intimated about the existence of the above said committees and their purpose. (Para 42) D. Conclusions - The High Powered State Level Committee should ensure that the model created by the State of Uttar Pradesh becomes a benchmark of excellence and a template for other States in the country. (Para 43) Writ petition disposed of. (E-4)

Title: Sheetal Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Ajay Bhanot

English hearing

WRIA/17707 /2023 Judgment/Order Date: 07-02-2025 (2025) 2 ILRA 493  

HEADNOTE hearing

A. Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Uttar Pradesh Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rule 7 - Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 Section 98 - Uttar Pradesh Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956 - Rule 3 - Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules, 2016 - Rule 99. The principle is that for errors of judgment on law or facts, or even perverse conclusions or negligence of a quasi- judicial officer or a judicial officer, is not to be proceeded with in the disciplinary jurisdiction. If his errors or even perversities were to be regarded as misconduct, punishable in the disciplinary jurisdiction, the wheels of dispensation of justice or disposal of quasi- judicial business would come to a standstill. It would, most certainly, slow down to a snail's pace, never to achieve the purpose for which it is there. (Para 15, 18) In the present case, the charge cannot be said to be one that is just about an error of judgment, mistake or mere negligence in the passing of his quasi- judicial orders by the petitioner. The charge is about the petitioner's involvement, apparently for extraneous reasons or on account of improper motive. It is true that the way the charge is worded at the tail-end and in its formal close, it does appear to be nothing more that an allegation of negligence in the discharge of his quasi-judicial functions by the petitioner. But, the charge is way beyond it, with ample St.ment of imputations in the body thereof, that are suggestive of both an improper motive and extraneous consideration in the exercise of quasi-judicial powers by the petitioner in the grant permission to transfer. The petitioner may not have been around in the year 1985, when bogus patta were granted in favour of the land holders, through whom it is claimed that the land belonging to the Gaon Sabha was transferred to vendees not belonging to the SC and then sold to the UPEIDA, but he was certainly around, as it appears, when rights of many of the patta holders were enlarged by conniving revenue officials. On facts such as these, he passed order granting transfer of land held by bhumidhar of the SC to vendees not of that class, without looking into the report of the Tehsildar or the SDM or without considering the fact that some files had the relevant certificates, but not placed through the SDM's report. (Para 27) This is a charge which is required to be determined at the inquiry, which will have to take its own course. Thus, it is perhaps for this reason that the petitioner has come up with the alternative prayer to the effect that a mandamus be issued to conclude the disciplinary proceedings against him expeditiously. While we are of opinion that the charge-sheet in this case cannot be quashed at the threshold, considering the fact that the petitioner's promotion is due, it is imperative that the disciplinary proceedings (not just the inquiry) be expedited. (Para 28) Writ petition disposed of. (E-4) Present petition assails the charge-sheet dated 18.08.2023, issued to him by the St. Government, initiating proceedings u/Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. And alternatively prays for an order to conclude the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner expeditiously.

Title: Amar Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P.& Ors.

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

English hearing

WRIA/15433 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 17-02-2025 (2025) 2 ILRA 486  

HEADNOTE hearing

A. Service/Education Law - Appointment - When the selected candidate is placed in a College, he has no right to change his placement. (Para 23) Dr. Sachidanand Sharma was appointed as permanent Principal on the basis of the recommendation made by the Commission in the institution. He resigned from the said post and Dr. Anjali Mittal, who was senior most teacher in the institution was appointed as Officiating Principal. Upon her retirement, petitioner was given charge of Officiating Principal on 14.6.2024. After resignation of Dr. Sachidanand Sharma, the Director of Education (Higher) passed an order dated 15.01.2024, directing the Secretary/ Manager of the Committee of Management to appoint respondent no. 6, who was in wait list of the selected candidate, at sl. no. 59 as Principal in the institution in question. (Para 19) It is not disputed that prior to issuance of the letter dated 15.01.2024 by the Director of Higher Education, U.P. Prayagraj, the respondent no. 6 had been appointed as Principal of Bajrang P.G. College, Dadar Ashram, Ballia and a letter dated 03.08.2022 was issued by the Director of Higher Education to the Committee of Management of the said institution to issue letter of appointment to the respondent no. 6. (Para 19) It is also not disputed that on behalf of the Director of Higher Education and Joint Director of Education an order dated 17.08.2023 has communicated to the Special Secretary. Higher Education, Anubhag-2, Lucknow that Manoj Kumar Rawat, respondent no. 6, who was in wait list of the selected candidate of Advertisement No. 49 of 2019 had been allotted Bajrang P.G. College, Dadar Ashram, Ballia and accordingly placement had been completed on 03.08.2022. It is further intimated by the Director that there is no provision in the Act or GO for change of allotment of the College. Further the Director of Higher Education by letter dated 13.12.2023 has intimated that there is no provision in the Act of 1980 for change of place of allotment/college. Thus, the Director of Higher Education has already rejected the prayer of respondent no. 6 for change of allotment of College. Moreover, the respondent no. 6 in his counter affidavit has not stated anything about the said orders, which infact rejects the claim/request of the respondent no. 6 for change of the College. (Para 20) B. Locus Standii - The petitioner being appointed as Officiating Principal, has locus to challenge, the appointment of respondent no. 6. (Para 25) In the present case, the Director of Education (Higher) having passed an order for appointment of respondent no. 6 in Bajrang P.G. College, Dadar Ashram, Ballia, the appointment process come to an end and the Director is ceased with the power to make recommendation or appointment of such candidate to any other College, as has been held in case of Km. Ragni Srivastava (infra). Moreover as the Director himself has rejected the claim of respondent no. 6 for his transfer from Bajrang P.G. College, Dadar Ashram, Ballia to Meerut College, Meerut by orders dated 17.8.2023 & 13.12.2023, the subsequent order dated 15.1.2024, directing the management to appoint respondent no. 6 as Principal is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained and hereby quashed. (Para 26) Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Title: Yudhveer Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

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

English hearing

WRIA/10045 /2020 Judgment/Order Date: 06-02-2025 (2025) 2 ILRA 482  

HEADNOTE hearing

Civil Law - Service Law - Backwages during the period of imprisonment - Principle of "no work no pay" - Petitioner was imprisoned from 23.01.2015 to 18.12.2018 after a criminal case was registered against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, by the Anti-Corruption Department on the complaint of a private electricity consumer. Criminal case was not instituted at the behest of the Corporation/employer. By the impugned order, arrears of salary to the petitioner for the period from 23.01.2015 to 18.12.2018 were declined on the principle of "no work no pay." Held: The principle of "no work no pay" is subject to exception only in rare instances, such as when an employer prevents an employee from discharging duties or creates impediments thereto. In the instant case, the petitioner has no lawful entitlement to backwages during the period of his imprisonment. The Corporation/employer neither created any hindrance nor prevented the petitioner from performing his duties. Granting backwages in violation of the principle of "no work no pay" would amount to unjust enrichment of the petitioner and an unfair loss to the State exchequer. Prayer for grant of backwages rejected; however, the petitioner is entitled to continuity in service for the said period for the purposes of pension. (Para 11) Dismissed. (E-5)

Title: Shivakar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Ajay Bhanot

English hearing

WRIA/9193 /2023 Judgment/Order Date: 24-02-2025 (2025) 2 ILRA 459  

HEADNOTE hearing

A. Service Law - UP Government Servant Seniority Rules, 1991 - Rules 8 & 9 - Seniority - Earlier inter-se seniority has been finalized after deciding the objections - Seniority list was published and acted upon too - Effect - How far it create rights - Permissibility of its review - Held, a vested right is created by issuance of the seniority list in as much as a government servant acquires a right to be considered for promotion in case any person lower in the seniority list is promoted, similarly he can claim parity in pay scale and other service benefits based on seniority - It has all the trappings of a quasi-judicial proceeding, and the St. government was denuded of its powers to embark to review of the order dated 13/07/2016 and the subsequent seniority list on merits at the subsequent stage. (Para 36 and 42) B. Service Law - UP Government Servant Seniority Rules, 1991 - Rules 8 & 9 - Seniority - Long-standing seniority - Inter-se seniority between the direct recruits and the promotees was determined - Scope of review - Doctrine of functus officio - Applicability - Held, once a final seniority list has been issued after deciding the objections filed by the concerned parties against the tentative seniority list, finding authority becomes functious officio and does not retain any power to repeatedly exercise the same power to redetermine the seniority between the same group of persons again and again - The longstanding seniority which is in existence for 3-4 years may not be unsettled. (Para 52 and 78) C. Service Law - Seniority - Process of its determination - Nature - Held, the appointing authority is exercising quasi- judicial powers of determination of seniority and his actions would be subject to the same limitations as that of a judicial/quasi judicial authority. (Para 55) D. Judicial review - Scope - Administrative action - Ministerial action and administrative decision - Distinction - In the ministerial action, the reasoning processes is minimum and almost routine - On the other hand, the administrative decision the process in which a decision is taken on objective standard of determination of which opinions may differ. The reasoning process takes into account the rival contentions and then comes a decision. This distinction is important because an administrative action is always reviewable while an administrative decision is the reviewable in special circumstances. (Para 33) E. Principle of res judicata - Distinct applicability to judicial decision and administrative decision - Held, a judicial decision is res judicata between the parties and it is for this reason it is not only the parties who cannot reopen the said decision but even the judicial authority which made the decision is prevented from reviewing it on merits. On the other hand an administrative decision which is not based on a dispute between two parties and which has not given after hearing the parties does not operate as res judicata. (Para 33) F. Principle of res judicata - Nature and Applicability - Held, the principle of res judicata is species of the principle of estoppel. When a proceeding based on a particular cause of action has attained finality, the principle of res judicata shall fully apply. (Para 44) G. Estoppel - Cause of action estoppel and Issue estoppel - Distinction - Cause of action estoppel arises where the cause of action in the later proceedings is identical to that in the earlier proceedings, the latter having been between the same parties or their privies and having involved the same subject-matter. In such a case, the bar is absolute in relation to all points decided unless fraud or collusion is alleged - Issue estoppel may arise where a particular issue forming a necessary ingredient in a cause of action has been litigated and decided and in subsequent proceedings between the same parties involving a different cause of action to which the same issue is relevant, one of the parties seeks to reopen that issue. Here also bar is complete to re-litigation but its operation can be thwarted under certain circumstances. (Para 50) H. Expression 'functus officio' - Meaning - A person who has discharged his duties, or whose office or authority is at an end. (Para 53) I. Seniority - Determination thereof - Date of substantive appointment - Relevancy - Appointment from back date - Competence of government to make it - Held, proviso to Rule 8 empowers the Government from making appointments from a back date which would be the deemed date of substantive appointment - The statutory rules having provided for the same it cannot be said that the same would be illegal or without jurisdiction. (Para 67) J. Interpretation of statute - UP General Clause Act, 1897 - S. 13 - Word 'Person' - A singular include plural - Applicability - Held, the interpretation which is reasonable and is in conformity with the Constitutional scheme, is liable to be accepted and followed rather than any interpretation which would lead to absurdity and arbitrariness - In interpreting the proviso to Rule 8 appointments can be granted from back date either to a single individual or to a group of individuals. (Para 73) K. Doctrine of Precedent - ' Stare decisis et non quieta movere' - Meaning - To stand by decided matters and not to disturb settled points. (Para 75) L. Practice and procedure - Non-joinder of party - Challenge to promotion order - All the affected person were not impleaded - Effect - Held, impleading a long list of parties will not only unnecessarily stretch the process of dispensation of justice but will also involve extravagant expenses in serving all the parties. In cases where there is a common grievance of a large number of employees, impleading few affected employees would be sufficient compliance with the principle of joinder of parties. (Para 81) Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

Title: Shiv Datt Joshi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.& Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Alok Mathur

English hearing

WRIA/2211 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 24-02-2025 (2025) 2 ILRA 452  

HEADNOTE hearing

A. Service Law - UP Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rule 9 - Punishment - Stoppage of two increments - Inquiry report was submitted - However, the disciplinary authority, while holding the petitioner guilty, relied upon some independent report of other authority - Permissibility - Held, the disciplinary authority is bound to consider only the material, which has been adduced during the inquiry proceedings. If on perusal of the material which has been adduced during the inquiry proceeding, lead him to take a different stand what has been recorded by the inquiry officer, he is within his competence to issue a notice to the petitioner disagreeing with the findings of the inquiry officer but at this stage he cannot enlarge the scope of inquiry and take the opinion from a third person and relying on the said material imposed punishment upon the government servant - Rule 9 of the Rules of 1999 has been grossly violated. (Para 13, 15 and 16) Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

Title: Dineshwar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Alok Mathur

English hearing

WRIA/2077 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 19-02-2025 (2025) 2 ILRA 445  

HEADNOTE hearing

A. Service Law - Financial Hand Book - Rules 53 & 54 - ReinSt.ment in service - Entitlement of back-wages - Relevant issue, which is required to be take into consideration - No allegation of delaying the expeditious disposal of disciplinary proceeding was there - Effect - Respondent considered the gainful employment after dismissal - Permissibility - Held, only relevant consideration in reducing the back wages paid to a government servant, if any, on his reinSt.ment after dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, would be the fact that he had not obstructed in expeditious disposal of the disciplinary proceedings - The ground considered by the respondents was wholly irrelevant for the purpose of grant of back-wages - The petitioner would be entitled to full back wages from the date of his suspension to the date of his reinSt.ment. (Para 14, 15 and 18) Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

Title: Gorakhnath Shukla Vs. State of U.P.& Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Alok Mathur

English hearing

WRIA/1977 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 18-02-2025 (2025) 2 ILRA 441  

HEADNOTE hearing

A. Service Law - Compassionate appointment - Relaxation in qualification - Master Circular No. 16 and Office Memorandum dated 11.12.2009 - Entitlement of sole child after successive death of the parent - Railway claimed that relaxation can be granted only to the widow not to the rest dependent - Permissibility - Held, the provision contained in the Master Circular issued by the Railway Board is applicable to all persons who were dependent on a deceased employee and that is not limited in its application to the widows of the deceased employees - High Court found the facts of the case prima facie making exceptional circumstances, which ought to have been taken into consideration while considering his claim for compassionate appointment by granting relaxation of education qualification in view of the aforesaid provisions contained in the Office Memorandum dated 11.12.2009. (Para 17 and 18) Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

Title: U.O.I. & Ors. Vs. Sri Santosh Kumar & Anr.

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

English hearing

WRIA/1940 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 17-02-2025 (2025) 2 ILRA 437  

HEADNOTE hearing

Voluntary Retirement-Tribunal directed the petitioners to grant the voluntary retirement to the Respondent on expiry of statutory period of 90 days -and to pay him all retiral dues-review rejected-recall rejected-present Writ- Petitioner sought voluntary retirement on the ground that he is not keeping good health-previously two punishment already given owing to his unauthorized absence from duty -that punishment does not provided that the periods of his absence shall not be counted in his service or that he shall not be paid salary for those periods-no other adverse consequence will follow due to the respondent's absence for the aforesaid period. W.P. dismissed. (E-9)

Title: U.O.I. & Ors. Vs. Dharmendra Kumar Sahu

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

English hearing

WRIA/713 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 04-02-2025 (2025) 2 ILRA 431  

HEADNOTE hearing

Service Law-salary-On basis of a complaint made by a complainant - an enquiry was initiated despite earlier complaint by the same person was rejected-impugned order- salary stopped -stating that petitioner's appointment was subject to the Writ which was dismissed as withdrawn and interim order was vacated - therefore, order of approval itself becomes inoperative and their salary got stopped -writ- appointment of petitioners were approved by the DIOS during pendency of the writ petition- on basis of consideration by Finance Section - said approval order not challenged-acted upon by granting promotion-impugned order set aside. W.P. disposed. (E-9)

Title: Smt. Durgesh Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.& Ors.

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

English hearing

SPLA/70 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 14-02-2025 (2025) 2 ILRA 421  

HEADNOTE hearing

A. Service Law - UP Police Radio Subordinate Service Rules, 2015 - Part IV - Reg. 8 (c) - Post of Operators/ Head Operator (Mechanical) - Qualification - Advertisement require three years Diploma - Petitioners, having Bachelor Degree, claim themselves eligible as it is a higher qualification - Permissibility - Held, any recruitment to public posts has to be carried out strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in the Recruitment Rules - A Bachelor Degree are not eligible for seeking appointment in furtherance of the recruitment notification dated 06.01.2022. (Para 6, 19 and 35) B. Service Law - Candidature - Cancellation - False information given during submission of the Application Form - Effect - Held, the petitioners applied for selection to the posts in question on their own by submitting false information regarding their eligibility qualification which renders their candidature liable to be canceled. (Para 25) C. Service Law - Qualification - Issue regarding equivalence - Competence to decide it - Equivalence of qualification for the purpose of appointment to public posts can be decided by the employer alone. The employer in the present case is the St. Government - The Recruitment Board has no authority to take any decision regarding equivalence of qualifications. (Para 21 and 39) D. National Education Policy, 2020 - Nature - How far it override the Rules - Held, the policy is a vision document for making improvements in the education system in future - A mere policy cannot override the specific provisions of recruitment Rules and unless the recruitment Rules are amended. (Para 32 and 33) Special Appeal partly allowed. (E-1)

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

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

English hearing

TACR/672 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 06-02-2025 (2025) 2 ILRA 419  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Law-The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 407- Witness Protection Scheme,2018-Transfer application on the ground that respondents are practicing Advocates and the applicant being a poor widow is under their threat perception and is unable to procure any competent Lawyer to contest her case---Directions issued that in case, the applicant/first informant or any of the witnesses approaches the authorities concerned by moving an application seeking protection under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 in the light of directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahendra Chawla & ors.Vs U.O.I.& ors., (2019) 14 SCC 615 for a free and fair trial, the authorities concerned shall ensure that the adequate security be provided to the applicant and the witnesses till the conclusion of the trial. (Para 7) (E-15)

Title: Smt. Kavita Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

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

English hearing

CRLR/3040 /2023 Judgment/Order Date: 07-02-2025 (2025) 2 ILRA 415  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 & 307- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 439-Bail - Second Bail Application - Prolonged Incarceration - Delay in Trial - Article 21 of the Constitution of India - Accused in custody for over 7 years and 9 months - Trial remained stalled due to pendency of challenge to summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. before Supreme Court - Only 3 of 16 prosecution witnesses examined - No likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future - Held, prolonged detention without progress in trial is violative of right to speedy trial under Article 21 - Bail not to be withheld as punishment - Bail granted. (Paras 16,17, and 18) HELD: Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury Vs Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy AIR (2017) SC 2383 placing reliance on a earlier judgment in Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar Vs Raj Kumari & anr.(1970) 3 SCC 129, in this case, it was held that 25% of the husband's net salary would be just and proper to be awarded as maintenance to the respondent-wife. The amount of permanent alimony awarded to the wife must be befitting the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay maintenance. Maintenance is always dependent on the factual situation of the case and the court would be justified in moulding the claim for maintenance passed on various factors. Therefore, without disturbing the broad findings of fact given by learned court below, the amount of maintenance awarded to the applicant is being modified as below. (Para 16) Considering the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be held that due to non-compliance of mandatory directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs Neha & anr.(supra) before the court below, the impugned judgment and gets vitiated under law. This court in revisional stage has assured compliance of mandatory directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs Neha & anr.(supra) to avoid any further delay in final disposal of the matter. The purpose of filing affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities is to clarify the stand of the parties in maintenance case, their assets, liabilities and economic condition show that the court may be in a position to out the truth and come to just decision in the case. (Para 17) Revision application dismissed. (E-14)

Title: Nagendra Sirohi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra

English hearing

CRLR/2019 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 19-02-2025 (2025) 2 ILRA 405  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Law -Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 325, 452, 504, 506 & 308 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 319, 397 & 401-Summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. - Sustainability of summoning order passed after conclusion of trial of chargesheeted accused - Applicant not charge-sheeted - Summoned as additional accused after co-accused already convicted and sentenced - Held, in view of law laid down in Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. St. of Punjab, (2022) 17 SCC 246, summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. must precede conclusion of trial - Summoning order passed after trial concluded and sentence pronounced is not sustainable - Impugned order set aside. (Paras 15 to 19) HELD: The Hon'ble Court answered question No.1, which is pertinent for the purposes of present Criminal Revision in affirmative and observed as under:- "The power under Section 319 of CrPC is to be invoked and exercised before the pronouncement of the order of sentence where there is a judgment of conviction of the accused. In the case of acquittal, the power should be exercised before the order of acquittal is pronounced. Hence, the summoning order has to precede the conclusion of trial by imposition of sentence in the case of conviction. If the order is passed on the same day, it will have to be examined on the facts and circumstances of each case and if such summoning order is passed either after the order of acquittal or imposing sentence in the case of conviction, the same will not be sustainable." (Para 16) In the light of above observation it can be concluded that where the trial of co-accused where at the time of passing of summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in respect of a person who was not earlier facing trial as accused in the case after conclusion of trial of the persons who were already facing as accused in the case resulting in their conviction and imposition of sentence, summoning order of the persons concerned as additional accused in exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. will not be sustainable. (Para 17) The facts of present case are squarely covered with the land mark judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sukhpal Singh Khaira (supra) and in view of foregoing discussion, the summoning order passed by learned court below against the revisionist in exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. after conclusion of trial, resulting in conviction and sentencing of accused persons who had already faced trial in main S.T. No. 84 of 2006, is not sustainable and thus cannot affirmed, the impugned summoning order is in conflict with law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sukhpal Singh Khaira (supra) as discussed above and thus vitiated by law, consequently the impugned order deserves to be set-aside. (Para 19) Revision application allowed. (E-14)

Title: Ramesh Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra

English hearing

CRLA/8466 /2022 Judgment/Order Date: 06-02-2025 (2025) 2 ILRA 387  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Law - The Indian Evidence Act,1872 - Sections 145 & 155 - Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 162-Deceased died of firearm injury - Sec 145 & 155 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 162 Cr.P.C., allow the party adversely affected by a deposition made at a trial- to confront the witness (making such deposition) with their previous St.ment including that recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C.- deposition of D.W.-1 cannot be brushed aside-neither the prosecution could bring out any contradiction in the testimony of the said witness - also failed to discredit his credibility- unable to reconcile the prosecution story with the deposition of D.W.-1- he further proved that the accused-appellant was not present at the time and place of occurrence. Appeal allowed. (E-9)

Title: Mayank Parasari Vs. State of U.P.

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

English hearing

CRLA/2806 /1983 Judgment/Order Date: 13-02-2025 (2025) 2 ILRA 373  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Law -Indian Penal Code-Section 394, 397 & 460-Clear eyewitness account in the present case-PW-1 and PW-3 being immediate family members are natural eyewitnesses of the occurrence-specific St.ment in respect of presence of surviving accused with country made pistol in his hand has also been made-firearm injury caused to the deceased. Appeal dismissed. (E-9)

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

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Vivek Kumar Birla,Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi

English hearing

BAIL/12654 /2023 Judgment/Order Date: 07-02-2025 (2025) 2 ILRA 369  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Law - Bail - Second Bail Application -Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 307, 286, 506 & 120-B- Delay in Trial - Criminal Law Amendment Act, Section 7- Applicability of Article 21 of the Constitution -Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 439-Constitution of India, Article 21- Applicant accused of double murder by firearm - Co-accused father granted bail by Supreme Court on grounds of advanced age - Applicant in custody since 16.09.2018 - Seven out of twenty- three prosecution witnesses examined - All witnesses supported prosecution - No undue delay attributable to prosecution - Held, although prolonged incarceration may justify bail in exceptional cases, each bail application to be examined on its own facts - When trial is progressing and prosecution witnesses support case, no ground made out for bail merely on ground of co-accused's release or general delay - Bail rejected. (Paras 14,16,17, and 18) HELD: It is settled law that a precedent has to be understood and applied in light of the peculiar facts of that case. (Para 14) In the present case, the trial is proceeding. As many as seven prosecution witnesses have been examined and all of them have supported the prosecution case. Therefore, the facts of the present case are in no manner similar to the facts of the cases of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh and Bhanwar Singh (Supra) cited by the learned Counsel for the applicant. (Para 16) The learned Counsel for the applicant could not point out any major discrepancies in the St.ments of the prosecution witnesses. Occurrence of some minor discrepancies in the St.ments of witnesses is natural and it would not give any benefit to the applicant. There is no allegation that the prosecution is causing undue delay in trial. (Para 17) The applicant's father co-accused Komal Singh has been granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court keeping in view the fact that he is a septuagenarian whereas the applicant is merely 42 years of age and this fact distinguishes the case of Komal Singh from the case of the applicant. (Para 18) Bail Application dismissed. (E-14)

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

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

English hearing

A482/42213 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 20-02-2025 (2025) 2 ILRA 366  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323,504,498-A & 506 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Section ¾ - Criminal Proceedings - Quashing of - Taking cognizance of inefficiencies in execution of judicial orders, Superintendent of Police directed to appear in person, submit personal affidavit - In compliance of order, officer present, filed compliance affidavit, fails to provide explanation for dereliction of duty - Court summoned Government Advocate seeking clarification - Furthermore, deeper examination of matter brought to light serious procedural impropriety - Private Secretary to Government Advocate found responsible for committing fraud upon court by unlawfully altering first page of affidavit, thereby misrepresenting identity of individual who dictated its contents - The act, reflects attempt to mislead judicial process and exercise functions beyond legally conferred authority - Assumption of powers by administrative officer, without any legal sanction, matter of grave concern - Purely clerical, does not extend to making substantive changes to official documents, particularly those submitted before court of law - Government Advocate granted time to file affidavit, interim order extended till next date of listing. (Para 2 to 5, 8, 10 11) Application pending. (E-13)

Title: Shanu Saxena & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.& Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Manju Rani Chauhan

English hearing

WTAX/2300 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 27-02-2025 (2025) 2 ILRA 363  

HEADNOTE hearing

Civil law - The Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017-Section 83- provisional attachment was made of the bank account of the petitioner- objections of the petitioner were dealt with by the respondent authorities and the provisional attachment was justified under Section 83 of the Act for a period of one year-show cause notice has already been adjudicated upon and order was passed u/s 74 of the Act- statutory alternative remedy to file an appeal u/s 83 of the Act. W.P. dismissed. (E-9)

Title: M/S Rajat Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.

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

English hearing

WTAX/830 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 14-02-2025 (2025) 2 ILRA 360  

HEADNOTE hearing

A. Tax Law - Interception and seizure of goods - e-tax Invoice and e-way Bill - Place of shipping address was differently mentioned - No defect in respect of quality and quantity of goods was found - Effect - Held, if the place of shipment is wrongly filled up, then it is merely a technical error - E-way bill has not been cancelled within its validity, therefore, no adverse view can be taken against the petitioner - Seizure or levy of penalty cannot be made. (Para 10, 12 and 14) Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

Title: M/S Zhuzoor Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Grade 2 & Anr.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Piyush Agrawal

English hearing

WRIC/6744 /2019 Judgment/Order Date: 10-02-2025 (2025) 2 ILRA 229  

HEADNOTE hearing

A. Civil Law -Constitution of India,1950- Article 226- Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act,2002-The petitioners challenged the Central Registrar's order dated 26.12.2018 rejecting their application for registration under the Act,2002 despite earlier directions from the HC in related writ petitions-The petitioners claimed a long history of registration and operation dating back to 1919, with branches and members in multiple states including uttar Pradesh, bihar, uttarakhand-the asserted that their society qualified as a multi-state cooperative society and sought mandamus to be treated as such-The court examined the statutory framework of cooperative society laws from 1912 through to the Act 2002- The registration, control and dissolution of a co-operative society depend on its area of operation, if the objects and membership span more than one State, State law alone does not suffice-central legislation becomes applicable-The court held that the Central Registrar erred in disregarding binding judicial directions and failing to properly assess the petitioner's historical registration, area of operation, and legal continuity under the deemed registration provision of law-(Para 1 to 62) The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

Title: The Mechanical Dept. Primary & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Anjani Kumar Mishra,Jayant Banerji

English hearing

WRIC/6041 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 24-02-2025 (2025) 2 ILRA 180  

HEADNOTE hearing

A. Civil Law-Constitution of India,1950- Article 226- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,2016- Sections 31 & 238-M/s Arena and a homebuyer challenged the refusal by NOIDA Authority to revalidate the layout map of the "Lotus Arena-I" housing project in Noida Sports City-The dispute centered on Noida's reliance on an internal board resolution pending direction from the State Government, despite an approved resolution plan under Code,2016 mandating Noida's cooperation-The petitioners argued that the resolution plan, sanctioned by NCLT and upheld by NCLAT, binds NOIDA under section 31 and 238 of the Code,2016- Noida's refusal violated its obligations under the sub-lease deed and IBC-The court examined irregularities highlighted by the CAG report, Noida's objections in insolvency proceedings, and the rights of homebuyers, noting that NOIDA had actively participated in the CIRP and its claims were considered-emphasizing the binding nature of the resolution plan and the prejudice caused to homebuyers, the Court quashed NOIDA's rejection letter dated 01.11.2023 and directed revalidation of the layout map to enable project completion in accordance with the resolution plan.(Para 1 to 195) The writ petition is disposed of. (E-6)

Title: M/S Arena Superstructures Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,Prashant Kumar

English hearing

A482/27233/2024 Judgment/Order Date: 24-02-2025 (2025) 2 ILRA 174  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 362 & 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 354-Kha, 323, 504 & 506 - The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 - Sections 7 & 8 - Application u/s 482 - for quashing the impugned order - FIR - lodged by the opposite party no. 4, alleging sexual assault on his minor daughter - investigation - final report - Magistrate issue notices - opposite party no. 4 was not appeared - final report accepted - recalled applicant along with a protest petition - trail court recalled and ordered to registered as complaint case - under challenged - plea taken that, acceptance of a final report does not bar cognizance if sufficient material exists - objected that, if a final report is accepted after hearing the informant, it cannot be recalled u/s 362 Cr.P.C - The legal issue revolves around whether recalling the acceptance of the final report violates Section 362 Cr.P.C., which bars courts from reviewing final orders except for clerical errors - Applicability of Section 362 Cr.P.C. - Section 362 Cr.P.C. bars courts from reviewing or altering final orders except for clerical errors, However, cognizance can still be taken based on fresh material - court finds that, the trial court passed acceptance order of the final report after serving the notice upon the opposite party no. 4 but, it was recalled later without giving any reasoning that the case was of procedural recall/review and not the substantive recall/review, despite the fact that order of accepting the final report was a final order disposing the case regarding cognizance on the basis of material available in the case diary - therefore, same is barred by section 362 Cr.P.C. - Consequently, the impugned order is set aside, and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration - application is allowed. (Para - 17, 18, 19, 20, 21) Application Allowed. (E-11)

Title: Amit Kumar Tiwari & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal

English hearing

A482/25418 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 10-02-2025 (2025) 2 ILRA 160  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973- Section 482 - Food Safety & Standards Act, 2006 - Sections 3(1)(n), 3(1)(o), 3(1)(y), 26, 26(2)(i), 26(4), 27, 42(4), 59(i) & 80 - Application U/s 482 - challenging the summoning order as well as the entire proceeding - Applicant is the employee of applicant no. 2 who is running a restaurant - dealing with selling different kind of prepared food - inspection carried out by food safety officer - sample of four sealed packets of turmeric collected of Goldiee Masala Brand - which were found having lead-chromate which is harmful for human consumption -complaint lodged - summon order issued U/s 59(1) of the Act, 2006 - court finds that - it is not in dispute that the applicant has purchased sealed packet of turmeric powder from a licenced/registered manufacturer and relied upon the information given by the manufacturer of the turmeric powder about the quality - if the turmeric powder is found to be unsafe despite guarantee of its quality - in that case, food business operator dealing with business of selling the turmeric powder or its distributor would be liable - held, the restaurant or its owner or any of its employee selling the food is not liable - consequently, the impugned proceeding against the applicants deserve to be quashed - accordingly, application is allowed - However, the court below is free to proceed against the manufacturer / distributor of the turmeric powder who despite issuing an invoice regarding its quality, failed to adhere to its standard. (Para - 27, 28, 30) Application Allowed. (E-11)

Title: Piyush Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal

English hearing

A482/11952/2024 Judgment/Order Date: 24-02-2025 (2025) 2 ILRA 153  

HEADNOTE hearing

(A) Criminal Law - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Old Section 482 Cr.P.C.) - Section 528 - The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 251, 252, 254 & 31 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 188 - Withdrawal of Prosecution & Cognizance - Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant , Section 341 - Punishment for wrongful restraint - Provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. are mandatory and non-compliance of it would vitiate the prosecution and other consequential orders - Cognizance of an offence under Section 188 I.P.C. without a complaint by a competent public servant is void ab initio and vitiates the entire proceeding including dependent offences like Section 341 I.P.C. - Plea of guilty must be made before the trial court under Section 251 Cr.P.C., not before the High Court, and must be clear, unambiguous, and unqualified. (Para -23,24) F.I.R. lodged under Sections 341 and 188 IPC - Charge-sheet filed without complaint by public servant under Section 195 Cr.P.C. - application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. filed by Public Prosecutor to withdraw prosecution - trial court rejected the application on the ground that the applicant had already pleaded guilty before the High Court - prosecution under Section 341 I.P.C. could not be withdrawn. (Para - 3, 5, 14- 15) HELD: - Since the charge-sheet relating to Section 188 I.P.C. had already been quashed and the Public Prosecutor had filed an application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. for withdrawal of prosecution in respect of the remaining Section 341 I.P.C., the Court, invoking its power under Section 528 B.N.S.S. (erstwhile Section 482 Cr.P.C.), held that there was no need to remand the matter to the trial court and accordingly treated the prosecution under Section 341 I.P.C. as withdrawn and the withdrawal application as allowed. (Para - 27) Application allowed. (E-7)

Title: Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.

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

English hearing

A482/8107 /2022 Judgment/Order Date: 06-02-2025 (2025) 2 ILRA 142  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - The Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 12 - Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, - Chapter V Rule 6, - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 & 227 - Application U/s 482 - to assail the proceeding initiated under the provisions of the D.V. Act, 2005 - Preliminary Objection of Maintainability - in view of the conflicting decisions of Co- ordinate Benches of this Court - Invocation of Inherent Power - Conflicting Decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches on the issue of maintainability of a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing an order passed on notice issued under Section 12 of D.V. Act, 2005 - in case of Smt. Suman Mishra, this court held that the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C was not maintainable - in case of Sandeep Kishor, another Co-ordinate Bench held that an application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C would not lie against an order passed under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, 2005 - in Case of Devendra Agarwal, another Co-ordinate Bench held that an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C is maintainable - Referral to Larger Bench - court referred the matter to a larger Bench for reconsideration to settle the legal position and bring about certitude on the subject - matter to be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for requisite orders - The instant application shall be adjourned by the trial court till final outcome of the reference. (Para - 19, 20, 21, 23) Application Pending. (E-11)

Title: Ram Lotan Vishwakarma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.

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

English hearing

A482/6694 /2019 Judgment/Order Date: 19-02-2025 (2025) 2 ILRA 138  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 200, 202, 202(2) & 482 - The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138, 143, 144, 145 & 147 - Application - challenging the summoning order as well as the orders passed u/s 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. - Complaint Case - St.ment u/s 200 Cr.P.C. - plea taken that before issue notices, it is mandatory on the part of Magistrate, to conduct an enquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.c. which was so done summoning order issued - applicability of section 202 Cr.P.C. in respect of complaints filed u/s 138 of NI Act, - court finds that, Magistrate while passing the impugned order has adverted to the complaint and the St.ment u/s 200 Cr.P.C., - there is no reason for insisting on the evidence of the witnesses to be taken on oath and section 202(2) Cr.P.C. shall not come in the way as held by the Supreme Court (in case of Mandvi Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs Nimesh B. Thakore) which provides that Section 202(2) of Cr.P.C. is inapplicable to complaints u/s 138 of NI Act, in respect of examination of witnesses on oath - held, there is no bar to permit the evidence of witnesses on behalf of the complainant on affidavit - hence, being no reason to believe that the magistrate has not conducted enquiry to arrive at sufficient ground to proceed against the accused, present application devoid it merit and is accordingly, dismissed. (Para - 8, 9) Application Dismissed. (E-11)

Title: Bhagwati Sharan Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.

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

English hearing