Uttaranchal High Court: The Division Bench of S.K. Mishra, ACJ and A.K. Verma, J. allowed an intra-Court appeal wherein the State has assailed the order passed by the Single Judge whereby the Writ Petition of the writ petitioners-respondents herein was allowed supposedly on the concession made by the government pleader.

The Court carefully examined the judgment passed in the connected allegedly covering judgment and it was apparent from the judgment itself that the petitioners in that case, who were working in the Police Headquarters cadre, filed the said Writ Petition for their absorption in the Headquarters’ cadre. The Court also noticed that the facts in this case, and the case, which was relied upon by the  Single Judge, are different.

It was submitted that since the government pleader made a concession on the basis of which the order impugned has been passed, the present intra-Court appeal is not maintainable.

The Court was of the view that, if a government pleader without proper instructions from the concerned department, makes a factually wrong statement, then the said statement will not be binding in the Court.

The Court held that in view of the fact that the Writ Petition was allowed on the very first date without even affording a reasonable opportunity to the State Government to file its counter-affidavit, the order impugned is not sustainable and is liable to be set-aside. The Court further held that Single Judge should give adequate opportunity to the State of Uttarakhand i.e. the appellants before us to file a counter-affidavit and decide the matter afresh. The impugned order was set aside and the intra-Court Appeal was allowed remanding the matter back to the Single Judge with the observation that an adequate opportunity of filing a counter-affidavit should be afforded to the State of Uttarakhand and the concerned authorities, and after such opportunity, the matter may be decided afresh strictly on merits.[State of Uttarakhand v. Vinod Singh Dev, 2022 SCC OnLine Utt 483, order dated: 23-05-2022]

Counsel for the appellants: Mr Pradeep Joshi

Counsel for the respondents: Mr K.K. Tiwari

Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.