Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: The Division Bench of Anjani Kumar Mishra and Prakash Padia, JJ., addressed a petition wherein, two major adults who were in a live-in relation sought protection from harassment for living together.

The facts in the instant case are that petitioner 1 is a major and is aged about 24 years and petitioner 2 is aged about 28 years.

Both the petitioners decided to be in a live-in relationship without any compulsion or coercion.

Though respondents 4 and 5 forcibly tried to solemnize petitioner 1’s marriage against her wishes and on knowing the said fact, petitioner 1 decided to live with Ajay Kumar with her own free will and without fear and pressure.

It has been added that both the petitioners have been happily living with each other but respondent 4 and 5 tried to harass them.

In view of the harassment, petitioner 1 had filed a complaint seeking protection, but no action has been taken till date. Further, it was argued the law laid down by the Supreme Court from time to time petitioners are legally entitled to Live-­in relationship without any fear or pressure more especially when they are major.

Since no action was taken by the police authorities, the present petition was filed.

Decision

In the Supreme Court decision of Lata Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 5 SCC 475, it was observed that a live-in relationship between two consenting adults of heterosexual sex does not amount to any offence even though it may be perceived as immoral.

In order to provide a remedy in civil law for the protection of women, from being victims of such relationship, and to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence in the society, first time in India, the DV Act has been enacted to cover the couple having a relationship in the nature of marriage, persons related by consanguinity, marriages, etc.

Few other legislations have been provided with respect to reliefs to women placed in certain vulnerable situations.

The issue in the instant matter had been already dealt with in the Supreme Court decision of Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sharma, (2013) 15 SCC 755.

Apart from the Supreme Court decision, a long line of decisions has settled the law that:

where a boy and a girl are major and they are living with their free will, then, nobody including their parents has the authority to interfere with their living together.

Bench further opined that the petitioners are at liberty to live together and no person shall be permitted to interfere in their peaceful living.

Court further added that, in case any disturbance is caused in the peaceful living of the petitioners, the petitioners shall approach the Senior Superintendent of Police.[Kamini Devi v. State of U.P., Writ C No. 11108 of 2020, decided on 23-11-2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: The Division Bench of Pankaj Mithal and Saurabh Lavania, JJ., dismissed a Public Interest Litigation.

The petitioner in Public Interest had sought quashing of letter of the Chief Engineer (Purchase) of U.P. Jal Nigam requesting  Crown Agents (India) Pvt. Ltd. to inspect Rashmi Metaliks Ltd., Kolkata and issuance of mandamus directing respondent 2 and 3 not to permit re-inspection of Rashmi Metaliks Limited, Kolkata.

The Court while explaining the purpose of PIL said that normal rule was that a person, who suffered a legal injury or whose legal right was infringed, alone had locus standi to invoke the writ jurisdiction to avoid miscarriage of justice but the said common rule of locus standi stood relaxed where the grievance was raised before the Court on behalf of poor, deprived, illiterate or the disabled persons, who cannot approach the Court independently for redressal of the legal wrong or the injury caused to them on account of violation of any constitutional or legal right. However, the relaxation was misused by unscrupulous persons seeking cheap publicity quoting the judgment of Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, (2010) 3 SCC 402.

The Court further observed that in the present petition the petitioner had not mentioned anything substantial other than he was a Lawyer and was involved in social work, thus not fulfilling the conditions of the rule laid down in the above case. The Court further stated that the petitioner in filing this petition in Public Interest had not even disclosed that he was filing this petition on behalf of such disadvantageous persons or that injustice was meted out to a large number of people and therefore it has become necessary for him to come forward on their behalf.

The Court while dismissing the PIL held that the petitioner was not a person, who had any credentials to move in Public Interest. Simply on the allegation that he was a Lawyer and a person involved in social work without disclosing his credentials and in the absence of the fact that the petition had been preferred in the interest of justice for large number of downtrodden persons who are unable to approach the Courts of Law, the petitioner was not entitled to maintain this petition in the public interest that too in a matter which does not involve basic human rights.

The Court, however, mentioned that U.P. Jal Nigam was not directly involved in the purchase of any material from any firm, rather it awarded contracts on a turn-key basis and it was the contractor who made purchases of the material from amongst firms prescribed by the U. P. Jal Nigam, provided there was otherwise no legal impediment thus letter of the Chief Engineer (Purchase) on record, since the purchases from the aforesaid firm would be taken subsequent to its certification by the inspecting agency, thus interference by the Court was not required.[Narendra Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 1395, decided on 05-11-2020]


Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has put this story together

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: The Division Bench of Shashi Kant Gupta and Shamim Ahmed, JJ., addressed whether public Interest litigation in service matters are maintainable.

Instant Public Interest Litigation was filed by the petitioner, who is an elected village Pradhan of Village Panchayat and further claimed that he is also doing social work for public welfare and public money.

Purpose of filing the petition was to secure the public money and to cancel the appointment of respondent 6 as Assistant Teacher in Junior High School which was obtained by illegal mode.

Analysis and Decision

Upon perusal of the averments made in the public interest litigation and documents appended thereto, petitioner sought direction cancelling the appointment of respondent 6 as Assistant Teacher and directing the State to initiate recovery proceedings against the respondent 6.

Court noted that when maintainability of the present public interest litigation, in-service matters, was raised by us no suitable reply was given by the counsel for the petitioner. The preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the instant PIL was raised by the Standing Counsel and submitted that in-service matter PIL is no longer res-integra, lacks bonafide and rather it is a proxy petition.

In view of the above-stated submission of the respondents, the Court considered it appropriate to take the question of maintainability of the Public Interest Litigation as a preliminary issue.

In the Supreme Court decision of Duryodhan Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra, (1998) 7 SCC 273, Court dealt with an issue as to whether a Public Interest Writ Petition, at the instance of a stranger, could be entertained by the Administrative tribunal and held that in service matter PIL should not be entertained, the inflow of so-called PILs involving service matter continues unabated in the Courts and strangely are entertained.

Orissa Administrative Tribunal’s decision in Amitarani Khnutia v. State of Orissa, 1996 (1) OLR (CSR)-2, the tribunal after considering the provisions of the Act held that a private citizen or a stranger having no existing right to any post and not intrinsically concerned with any service matter is not entitled to approach the Tribunal.

The following passage from the above judgement is relevant:

“…A reading of the aforesaid provisions would mean that an application for redressal of grievances could be filed only by a ‘person aggrieved’ within the meaning of the Act.
Tribunals are constituted under Article 323 A of the Constitution of India. The above Article empowers the Parliament to enact law providing for adjudication or trial by Administrative Tribunals of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government and such law shall specify the jurisdiction, powers and authority which may be exercised by each of the said Tribunals. Thus, it follows that Administrative Tribunals are constituted for adjudication or trial of the disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts. Its jurisdiction and powers have been well-defined in the Act. It does not enjoy any plenary power.”

High Court agreeing with the above reasoning answered the first question in negative and held that the Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Act cannot entertain public interest litigation at the instance of a total stranger.

In the Supreme Court’s decision of Dr D.B. Singh v. Union of India, (2004) 3 SCC 363, Bench decided that the case on the same lines and held that PIL is not maintainable in service matters.

Further, the Court also relied on the decision of Neetu v. State of Punjab, (2007) 10 SCC 614, the Supreme Court held as follows:-

“The scope of entertaining a petition styled as public interest litigation, locus standi of the petitioner particularly in matters involving service of an employee has been examined by this court in various cases. Referring to the decisions in Dr Duryodhan Sahu  v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 273 and Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B. in (2004) 3 SCC 349, cited supra, the Supreme Court held that PIL in service matters has been held as not maintainable.”

Relying on the above-referred Supreme decisions, Court deemed it necessary to extract Article 141 of the Constitution of India, which reads as follows:

141. Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts — The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.”

Hence, the Court held that when the PIL is not maintainable in service matters and time and again the same has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in series of decisions, the public Interest Litigation is not maintainable in law and the same is dismissed accordingly. [Jagdish Prasad v. State of U.P., PIL No. 751 of 2020, decided on 24-08-2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: The Division Bench of Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Dr Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, JJ., while addressing the matter with regard to the assignment of the registration number of a motor vehicle made an observation that:

Reservation of registration numbers considered attractive is only as an exception to the general procedure of assignment of registration numbers falling in serial order after the last registration mark assigned, and the same is to be made as per the procedure prescribed under sub-rule (2) of Rule 51-A.

The instant petition was filed seeking for a direction to respondent 2 to provide Registration No. U.P. 85BQ-0001 of LMV to the petitioner and extend the period of two weeks for getting the stated registration number.

Petitioner’s Counsel, Ghanshyam Dwivedi submitted that the petitioner had applied for getting a V.I.P number of the vehicle by depositing Rs 1,00,000 as a fee, however, he wasn’t able to purchase the vehicle.

Since petitioner now wanted to purchase the vehicle, therefore he sought a direction to grant two weeks time to purchase the vehicle and accordingly the V.I.P number may be allotted.

Standing Counsel, Girish Chandra Vishwakarma submitted that in view of the provisions of clauses (v) and (vi) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 51-A of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1981, neither registration number can be allotted nor reservation fee can be refunded to him.

Analysis and Decision

Section 41 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides the manner in which registration is to be made.

As per Section 41(6), the registering authority is to assign to the vehicle, for display thereon, a distinguishing mark, referred to as the registration mark, consisting of one of the groups of such of those letters and followed by such letters and figures as are allotted to the State by the Central Government from time to time by notification in the Official Gazette, and displayed and shown on the motor vehicle in such form and in such manner as may be provided by the Central Government.

Rule 51-A of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 relates to the allotment of registration marks.

Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 51-A of the above-stated rules provides that the assignment of registration mark to motor vehicles shall be as per the Central Government’s notification issued under Section 41(6) of the Act, 1988.

As per the procedure under sub-rule (2), on receipt of an application in the prescribed format under the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, the Registering Authority shall assign a registration number which falls in serial order after the last registration mark assigned subject to the provision for reservation of any registration number as considered necessary to be assigned to the vehicles of Government, as provided under clause (i) of sub-rule (2), or to reserve registration numbers considered attractive as per the procedure provided under sub-rule (2).

Bench stated that in the instant case, although the reservation of the registration number was obtained by depositing the prescribed fee but the vehicle was not purchased so far.

Since, the petitioner failed to produce the vehicle within 30 days as prescribed with an application namely Form-20 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1983, the registration number shall be cancelled, the same number hence can be allotted to any other person.

The registration fee deposited also cannot be refunded in view of the bar contained in clause (v) of Rule 51-A (2).

Assignment of Registration Number

Court observed that the assignment of registration numbers as per the statutory provisions are to be made in serial order after the last registration mark assigned, the reservation of registration numbers can be made only as are considered necessary to be assigned to the vehicles of the Government, or in case of registration number considered attractive, the reservation may be made for any person who submits an application and makes the payment as per the procedure prescribed.

The conditions prescribed in respect of reservation of registration numbers, as are considered attractive, include a clear stipulation under clause (vi) of sub-rule (2) that the reservation of registration number shall be cancelled if the vehicle is not produced within thirty days from the date of reserving the registration number and the number so cancelled can be allotted to any other person by Registering Authority who makes an application along with the fees prescribed.

Petitioner’s application for reservation of a V.I.P number is therefore subject to the conditions provided with regard to the same under sub-rule (2) of Rule 51-A of the Rules, 1998, hence no relief was granted to the petitioner.[Rajesh Gaur v. State of U.P.,   2020 SCC OnLine All 1315, decided on 15-10-2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: Dr Kaushal Jyendra Thaker, J., decided an appeal with regard to the claim petition being filed beyond 6 months and the same being dismissed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on the said ground in light of Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act as amended in 2019.

The instant appeal was filed at the behest of claimants whose claim petition came to be dismissed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal holding it barred by limitation as the accident took place on 24-12-2019 and the petition was filed on 20-08-2010 (sic).

The claim petition by MACT was dismissed on the ground of filing of the same beyond 6 months of the date when the accident took place.

The above-stated claim was barred under provisions of Section 166 (3) of the Motor Vehicle Act as amended in 2019.

It has been contended in the present appeal that the Tribunal mechanically held that amended Section 166 (3) of the MV Act subscribes a period of 6 months for filing claim petition and hence the matter could not be entertained.

Appellants counsel submitted that question of law is involved in the present appeal and hence contended that the order of the Tribunal was passed against the settled principle of law.

Further, it was submitted that the instant matter could be viewed from three angles:

Extension of Limitation Period

  • The accident took place in December 2019, even if the assumption made by the Tribunal that Section 166 (3) had been notified and is made applicable is considered, six months’ period would be over during the pandemic. But the pandemic struck us in the month of March, 2020 and the Supreme Court by an omnibus order extended the period of limitation. This aspect should have also been looked into by the Judge. Various orders in reference to the extension of limitation were passed in light of the lockdown.

Therefore it appears that the order passed by the tribunal was done in sheer haste.

No Limitation Period

  • Another aspect to be appreciated was, even if the provisions of Section 166(3) of the MV Act, 2019 were brought on the statute book, Judge could have seen the matter from a different angle that there is substitution of Section 163A with Section 164, where no period of limitation has been prescribed.

Evaluation of the Gazette of India with regard to Amendment Act 2019

  • The third Aspect was that though Section 166(3) of the MV Act was notified but what exactly is the current position of the said provision.

Concluding the instant matter, Bench noted that the provisions under Section 140 of the Principal Act which speaks about the liability of the Owner and/or Insurer to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no-fault, Section 163-A of the Principal Act which provides for the special provisions as to payment of compensation based on a structured formula and under Section 166 of the Principal Act which states that legal representative/s can continue to prefer any of the application mentioned hereinabove for compensation as Sections 140, 163-A and 166 of the Principal Act would continue to operate with full vigor till the time Section 51 to 57 of the Amendment Act are notified in the Official Gazette.

Court enquired from the State Law Officer, Mr Ojha in regard to the position of Section 166(3) of the MV Act and he stated that the same has not been brought on the statute book. Section 166 of the 1998 Act would still govern the litigation as of today.

Hence, High Court held that the alternatives were available for MACT, yet it passed the order in sheer haste of disposal while losing sight of the aspects stated above.

Bench directed Virjendra Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer, MACT to remain more vigilant in future while deciding the claim petition under beneficial legislation.

Judgment/Order passed by the Tribunal was quashed and set aside by the Court and the claim petition has been asked to restore. Further, the Court directed the Tribunal to proceed as per Section 166 read with Section 168 of the MV Act as till date amended section dealing with Chapter X, XI, XII of the Act have not been brought on statute book substituting the earlier provision. [Shailendra Tripathi v. Dharmendra Yadav, 2020 SCC OnLine All 1360, decided on 20-11-2020]


Counsels for the Parties:

Appellant: Yogesh Kumar Tripathi, Sanjay Kumar Singh

Respondent: Rahul Sahai

Appointments & TransfersNews

President of India in the exercise of the power conferred by clause (1) of Article 217 of the Constitution of India, appointed Justices Prakash Padia, Alok Mathur, Pankaj Bhatia, Saurabh Lavania,  Vivek Varma, Sanjay Kumar Singh, Piyush Agrawal, Shriaurabh Shyam Shamshery, Jaspreet Singh, Rajeev Singh, Manju Rani Chauhan, Karunesh Singh Pawar,  Dr Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, Manish Mathur, Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, Ram Krishna Gautam, Umesh Kumar, Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, Anil Kumar—IX, Rajendra Kumar—IV, Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, Vikas Kunvar Srivastav, Virendra Kumar Srivastava, Suresh Kumar Gupta, Sushri Ghandikota Sri Devi, Narendra Kumar Johari, Raj Beer Singh and  Ajit Singh, Additional Judges of the Allahabad High Court, as Judges of the Allahabad High Court with effect from the date they assume charge of their respective office.

  • Justice Prakash Padia, B.A., L.L.B, was born on 10.03.1965. He enrolled as an Advocate on 02.02.1989. He had 28 years of practice in Allahabad High Court in Civil, Constitutional, Company and Service matters with specialization in Corporation and Education. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice Alok Mathur, B.Sc (Hons.) Chemistry, LLB, was born on 16.11.1964. He enrolled as an Advocate on 06.10.1989. He had 28 years of practice in Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court in Civil, Constitutional, Taxation, Labour and Service matters with specialization in Constitutional and Taxation matters. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice Pankaj Bhatia, B.Sc., LLB, was born on 15.09.1966. He enrolled as an Advocate on 09.12.1989. He had 27 years of practice (18 yrs. in Allahabad High Court and 9 years in Supreme Court) in Civil, Constitutional, Taxation, and Service matters with specialization in Indirect Taxes. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice Saurabh Lavania, B.A., L.L.B, M.L.P.M., was born on 17.04.1966. He enrolled as an Advocate on 22.04.1990. He had 26 years of practice in High Court and Subordinate Courts in Civil, Service and Constitutional matters with specialization in Civil, Service and Constitutional matters. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice Vivek Varma, B.Sc., (Biology), L.L.B., was born on 29.12.1969. He enrolled as an Advocate on 04.09.1992. He had 25 years of practice in Allahabad High Court in Constitutional, Education, Service and Local Bodies with specialization in Education, Local Bodies and Service matters. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh, B.Sc., L.L.B., was born on 21.01.1969. He enrolled as an Advocate on 09.05.1993. He had 24 years of practice in Allahabad High Court in Criminal, Civil, Service, Education and Misc. Writ Jurisdiction with specialization in Criminal matters relating to economic offences and Narcotics. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice Piyush Agrawal, B.Com, LL.B., was born on 06.11.1971. He enrolled as an Advocate on 28.08.1993. He had 24 years of practice in Allahabad High Court in Taxation, Company and Constitutional matters with specialization in Taxation matters. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, B.Sc., LLB., was born on 04.02.1969. He enrolled as an Advocate on 20.11.1994. He had 22 years of practice in Allahabad High Court in Civil, Criminal, Constitutional, Labour, Service, Arbitration and Electricity with specialization in Constitutional, Civil, Criminal, Arbitration and Service matters. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice Jaspreet Singh, B.Com., LLB., was born on 29.08.1971. He enrolled as an Advocate on 21.12.1994. He had 23 years of practice in Allahabad High Court in Civil, Constitutional, Taxation and Company matters with specialization in Civil matter. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice Rajeev Singh, B.Sc., LLB., was born on 03.04.1968. He enrolled as an Advocate on 15.01.1995. He had 22 years of practice in Lucknow High Court, CAT, UP State Public Tribunal, Debt Recovery Tribunal, in Criminal, Constitutional, Civil, Labour, Company and Service matters with specialization in Criminal, Constitutional and Service matters. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice Manju Rani Chauhan, M.A., LLB., was born on 29.08.1966.
    She enrolled as an Advocate on 26.11.1995. She had 22 years of practice in Allahabad High Court in Civil, Criminal and Service matters with specialization in Service matter. She was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years. Her present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar, B.A., LLB., was born on 19.05.1971. He enrolled as an Advocate on 05.02.1996. He had 21 years of practice in Allahabad High Court in Civil, Service, Criminal and Constitutional matters with specialization in Service matters, Co-operative Societies, Law relating to Sugar Industries. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Dr Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, M.Sc., D.Phil., LLB., was born on 30.12.1965. He enrolled as an Advocate on 27.05.1996. He had 21 years of practice in Allahabad High Court in Civil, Criminal, Company, Constitutional, Labour, Service, Revenue and Excise matters with specialization in Civil, Constitutional, Service, Company Matters, Labour and Industrial Laws. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice Manish Mathur, B.Com., LLB., was born on 09.06.1972. He enrolled as an Advocate on 27.12.1996. He had 20 years of practice in Allahabad High Court in Civil, Criminal, Constitutional, Labour and Service matters with specialization in Civil and Service matters. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 2 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, B.A., LLB., was born on 05.07.1971. He enrolled as an Advocate on 20.11.1997. He had 20 years of practice in Civil, Criminal, Constitutional, Taxation, Labour, Company and Service matters with specialization in Civil, Tax, Company matters. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice Ramkrishna Gautam, BSc., LL.B., was born on 15.06.1960. He joined the Judicial Service on 08.08.1985. He served in various capacities as a Judicial Officer. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice Umesh Kumar, BA., LL.B., was born on 08.07.1960. He joined the Judicial Service on 05.08.1985. He served in various capacities as a Judicial Officer. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, B.A., LL.B., LL.M., was born on 30.09.1959. He served in various capacities as a Judicial Officer. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice Anil Kumar-IX, B.Sc., LL.B., was born on 31.05.1959. He joined the Judicial Service on 01.08.1986. He served in various capacities as a Judicial Officer. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice Rajendra Kumar-IV, B.A., LL.B., was born on 01.07.1962. He joined the Judicial Service on 13.06.2005. He served in various capacities as a Judicial Officer He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, B.Com (Hons.)., LL.B., was born on 26.01.1963. He joined the Judicial Service on 13.06.2005. He served in various capacities as a Judicial Officer. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice VikasKunvar Srivastava, B.A., LL.B., LL.M., was born on 28.06.1960. He joined the Judicial Service on 17.06.2005. He served in various capacities as a Judicial Officer. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice Virendra Kumar Srivastava, B.Sc., LL.B., was born on 01.01.1962. He joined the Judicial Service on 26.10.1984. He served in various capacities as a Judicial Officer. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta, B.Sc., LL.B., was born on 21.06.1961. He joined the Judicial Service on 18.06.2005. He served in various capacities as a Judicial Officer.He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice GhandikotaSree Devi, B.Sc., LL.B., was born on 21.06.1961. She joined Judicial Service on 30.09.2005. She served in various capacities as a Judicial Officer. She was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years and transferred to Telangana High Court w.e.f 15.05.2019. Her present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice Narendra Kumar Johari, B.Sc., LL.B., was born on 20.10.1962. He joined the Judicial Service on 10.06.2005. He served in various capacities as a Judicial Officer.  He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice Raj Beer Singh, B.Sc., LL.B., LLM, was born on 06.12.1964. He joined the Judicial Service on 26.07.2005. He served in various capacities as a Judicial Officer. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice Ajit Singh, B.Sc., LL.B., was born on 30.03.1961. He joined the Judicial Service on 13.06.2005. He served in various capacities as a Judicial Officer. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 2 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.

Ministry of Law and Justice

[Press Release dt. 17-11-2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: Dr Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J., held that a complaint made in light of dishonor of cheque filed with a delay of one day cannot be dismissed as one day delay has to be excluded.

The instant application was filed under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 on being aggrieved by an Order passed by Court of Additional Sessions Judge and another order passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act whereby applicants’ complaint was dismissed on the ground of delay.

Factual Matrix

INSUFFICIENCY OF FUNDS

Accused/OP 2 had requested for money of Rs 6,00,000 from the complainant/applicant on personal need which was later transferred in the accused’s bank account. At the time of the return of the same, OP 2 gave to the applicant a Cheque which was dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds.

In view of the above, a notice was sent to OP 2, on receiving the same, he again gave a cheque which was presented with a remark “Alteration /Correction on Instruments”. Despite notice OP 2 has so far not given the amount of the cheque, further on being aggrieved, the applicant filed the complaint.

Court concerned in light of the complaint summoned OP 2 after recording the statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC against which the OP 2 preferred revision before the Sessions Judge, Aligarh. Sessions quashed the summoning order holding that legal notice was not sent within the time prescribed and hence matter was remanded back to the Court concerned.

Section 142 of NI Act gives ample power to the Judge to condone delay.

Bench stated that in view of the provisions amended in the Negotiable Instruments Act way back on 06-02-2003, even if Court considers there was a delay in the lodgement of the complaint, applicant’s counsel satisfied the Court’s conscience that the complaint was in time as the period of one day has to be excluded.

Court observed that the respondent wanted to take advantage of loopholes in the Act, hence Judge was directed to pass a reasoned summoning order to the respondents who evaded to appear even before this Court.

In view of the above discussion, the impugned order was set aside and quashed. [Pankaj Sharma v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 1339, decided on 22-09-2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: Disgruntled with the respondent for non-compliance with the Court’s earlier orders, Vivek Kumar Birla, J. allowed the present contempt application and issued a show-cause notice to the concerned delinquent officers.

The present contempt application has been filed by the applicant pleading for an action against the respondent for wilful disobedience of the judgment and order dated 18-09-2018 passed by this Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 656 of 2018 and the order dated 17-09-2019 passed in Contempt Application (Civil) No. 5773 of 2019

Counsel for the applicant, Kushmondeya Shahi has submitted that the copy of the order had been served to the respondent and yet nothing was done in that regard. Left with no other option, the applicant filed the present application seeking relief. The respondent had been granted more time for compliance vide order dated 17-09-2019 but even after the expiry of the period, any decision is yet to be taken by the respondents.

Upon careful perusal of the facts and circumstances, the Court has found it fit to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondent.

Lamenting over the sorry state of affairs with respect to the compliance of its orders, the Court has passed strict remarks taking the concerned administrative officers to the task. The remarks have been reproduced below for reference:

“This Court is noticing every day that apparently the officers concerned, who were directed to act as per the order of the Court, are not complying with the orders at the first instance and the aggrieved party is forced to file contempt application and even after granting further time to comply with the order of the writ Court passed in contempt application, the orders not being complied with. Apparently, the Officers are becoming habitual and not complying with the orders of this Court at the first instance.

This is a sorry state of affairs and it is expected that the opposite party shall make every effort and shall also issue necessary orders in this regard to the subordinate authorities to strictly comply with the orders at the first instance itself, otherwise the Court will take a serious view of the matter.”

 In view of the above, the Court has allowed the present contempt application issuing notice to the respondent to appear in person and show cause as to why charges be not framed against him under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for wilful disobedience of the aforementioned orders. [Arun Kumar v. Renuka Kumar, Contempt Application (Civil) No. 3033 of 2020, decided on 08-09-2020]


Yashvardhan Shrivastav, Editorial Assistant has put this story together

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: Dr Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J., addressed a matter with regard to the settlement of divorce proceedings.

Parties in the present petition have deposed before the Court below that they have entered into a compromise.

Hence, in view of the above, the petition is taken for final disposal.

It has been observed that certain offences were non-compoundable and they were within the power of Magistrate to compound namely under Sections 498-A of Penal Code, 1860 and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Section 498A: Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine

Section 3: Penalty for giving or taking dowry

Section 4: Penalty for demanding dowry

Further, it was noted that both the parties, i.e. the husband and wife and other family members settled the matter and decided to leave in peace after taking divorce.

The Court was of the view that the settlement between the parties should be accepted and the offence compounded. The decision of the Supreme Court in Bitan Sengupta v. State of W.B., (2018) 18 SCC 366 was referred.

Therefore, proceedings were quashed and settlement was recorded under Section 482 CrPC. In Supreme Court’s decision in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675, it was observed that in matrimonial offences, it becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlement of matrimonial disputes.

Bench exercising its powers under Section 482 read with 397 of CrPC, 1973 permitted the parties to leave in peace.

Section 482 CrPC: Saving of inherent powers of the High Court.

Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

Section 397 CrPC: Calling for records to exercise of powers of revision

(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record.

Explanation.—All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of Section 398.

(2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceedings.

(3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.

Court quashed the proceedings under Section 397 CrPC and allowed the petition.

The petitioner’s counsel pointed the orders passed by the Court below and hence the bench defied the proceedings if not yet defied. [Deena Nath v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 1057, decided on 23-09-2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: In the instant case where the summoning order issued as per the requisites of Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, was challenged as being ‘bad in law’ and the question arose that once the intention of the party is clear that he does not wish to make payment, should a complainant wait for 15 days to file the complaint; the Bench of Dr Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J., answering the question in negative, dismissed the petition while observing that proviso (c) to Section 138 of the NI Act cannot be interpreted to mean that even if the accused refuses to make a payment, the complainant cannot file a complaint.

As per the facts of the case, two cheques of Rs 5,00,000 and Rs 5,98,000 were dishonoured on 28-05-2019. The complainant sent a notice on 11-06-2019. Upon not receiving any money, on 29.06.2019 the complainant filed the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. Consequently, a summoning order dated 03-09-2019 was issued whereby which the petitioner was supposed to present himself on 30-11-2019. The counsel for the petitioner Ajay Dubey upon being asked to explain that why the summoning order is bad, stated that as per the provisions of Section 138 the petitioner cannot be asked to answer the summons as he had already filed a reply and the complaint could have been filed only after 15 days of his reply and it was filed before the said date. The petitioner’s counsel further contended that summoning order was not in compliance with the provisions of Section 138 and that the application was falsely implicated due to enmity and financial dispute with the complainant.

Perusing the arguments and the Sections 138 and 142 of NI Act, the Court observed that the 15 days statutory period as per Section 138 proviso (c), is for making payment and does not constitute ingredients of offence punishable under Section 138. The proviso simply postpones the actual prosecution of the offender till such time he fails to pay the amount, then the statutory period prescribed begins for the lodging of complaint. The Court noted that, “In the case in hand, the petitioner herein replied to the notice which goes to show that the intention of the drawer is clear that he did not wish to make the payment. Once this is clarified, should the complainant wait for the minimum period of 15 days, the answer would be ‘no’”.[Ravi Dixit v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 1056, decided on 23-09-2020]


Sucheta Sarkar, Editorial Assistant has put this story together

Appointments & TransfersNews

President appoints the following as the Additional Judges of the Allahabad High Court in the order of seniority, for a period of two years with effect from the date they assume charge of their respective office:

S/Shri (1) Sanjay Kumar Pachori (2) Subhash Chandra Sharma (3) Subhash Chand and (4) Smt. Saroj Yadav

Read the notification here: NOTIFICATION


Ministry of Law and Justice

[Notification dt. 11-09-2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: Dr Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J., addressed a petition where protection was sought of the Court by a couple against threats and harassment by family members.

The Petitioners (a wife and her husband) sought directions upon respondents not to interfere in their married life and also sought the protection of their life and liberty.

Harassment & Threat

Petitioners stated that they are adults and living together as husband and wife out of their own free will. For the said reasons, the respondent and his other family members were angry with them and that there was serious danger to the petitioners’ lives as they were being threatened and harassed.

Age

To substantiate their claim the petitioner-wife submitted her high school certificate as proof that she was a major now and along with that, the petitioner-couple have brought on record the complete online application for registration of their marriage.

Family Honour

Petitioners have an apprehension that the respondents would eliminate them for the honour of the respondent’s family.

Contentions

Standing Counsel for the State submitted that an FIR is already pending against the petitioner-husband when he and the petitioner-wife had eloped and that the petitioner-husband has been charged with having committed an offence under POCSO Act (the petitioner-wife being a minor at that time) and therefore, he ought not be granted protection of the Court.

Petitioners’ counsel submitted that the FIR was lodged when the petitioners had first eloped but now they have entered into wedlock and the petitioner-wife is now major and therefore, the FIR not being recent but of 2018, cannot come in way of their getting married and getting protection by this Court.

Decision

The Bench stated that there is no need to issue any notice to the private respondents and with the consent of the petitioners’ counsel, the petition is disposed of in terms of the Rules of the Court. The Supreme Court in a long line of decisions has settled the law that where a boy and a girl are major and they are living with their free will, then, nobody including their parents, has any authority to interfere with their living together.

Cases for reference:

Gian Devi v. Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Delhi, (1976) 3 SCC 234; Lata Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 5 SCC 475; and Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 6 SCC 396.

Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court stated that in case of any disturbance being caused in the peaceful living of the petitioner, they shall approach the police authority concerned.

Petition was partly allowed. [Priya Verma v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 1023, decided on 07-09-2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: Dr Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J., decided upon the prayer of protection being sought by a boy and girl living together on their own free will as husband and wife with threats and harassment.

The present matter is in regard to seek a direction upon the respondents to not interfere in the petitioner’s married life and the protection of their lives has also been sought.

Serious Danger to Life

Petitioners claimed that they are adults and living together on their own free will, though they are being threatened and harassed by the private respondent and his other family members.

Family Honour

Further, the petitioners added that they are living as husband and wife and have apprehension that private respondent can eliminate them for the honour of his family.

They seek protection as their lives may be endangered.

Decision

Bench stated that the present petition is to be disposed of in terms of the Rules of the Court.

Court referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Gian Devi v. Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Delhi, (1976) 3 SCC 234; Lata Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 5 SCC 475; and Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 6 SCC 396 and observed that the law has been settled by the Supreme Court that,

“…where a boy and a girl are major and they are living with their free will, then, nobody including their parents, has authority to interfere with their living together.”

Therefore, petitioners are at liberty to live together and no person shall be permitted to interfere in their peaceful living.

Petitioners shall approach the police authority concerned in case of any disturbance of their peaceful living.

In view of the above, the petition was disposed of. [Priyanka v. State of U.P., Writ-C No. 13345 of 2020, decided on 03-09-2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Pandemic is spreading like wild fire, despite harsh lockdowns. We are standing naked at the shore and don’t know when the huge wave of Corona may sweep us into the deep sea.

— Allahabad High Court

Allahabad High Court: A Division Bench of Shashi Kant Gupta and Shamim Ahmed, JJ., while addressing issues with regard to ban on performing Moharram rituals, held that,

“…it is with a heavy heart that we hold that in these testing times, it is not possible to lift the prohibition by providing any guidelines for regulating the mourning rituals/practice connected with the 10th day of Moharram.”

Petitioners have challenged the Government Order with regard to prohibiting them along with the members of their community from taking out the Moharram Processions and further sought a direction to respondent authorities to permit them to perform religious mourning rituals/practice connected with Moharram till 30-08-2020 in light of the prevailing Pandemic situation.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the complete ban in taking out the Moharram processions is discriminatory in nature.

Issues to be determined by the Court are as follows:

  • Whether the impugned Government Orders are arbitrary and discriminatory inasmuch as they seek to target a particular community?
  • Whether complete prohibition on carrying out processions on 30-08-2020 violates the Fundamental Right to practice and profess religion and whether rituals ought to be permitted by imposition of reasonable restrictions instead?
  • Whether in view of the prevalent situation of the pandemic, the imposition of complete prohibition from carrying out processions on 30-08-2020 is reasonable and justified?

Bench determined the above-stated issues and stated that, in view of controlling the spread of COVID-19, the State Government has imposed a complete prohibition on all religious activities that may involve a large conglomeration of people, across communities, and as such the government orders are not discriminatory nor do they target any Community, in particular.

Issues 2 and 3 are interrelated. Court with regard to the same stated that it would be discriminatory to grant permission to certain districts while prohibiting the others. Further, the intensity of the spread of the contagion in the State is rising at an alarming rate.

Adding to the above, Court expressed that there is no doubt that the burial of the Taziyas at the burial ground is a solemn and important part of the Muharram custom.

There is no mechanism fathomable, by the means of which it can be ensured that all such persons be permitted to take the Taziyas to the burial ground in a single day, while avoiding the risk of transmission of the contagion or following basic rules of social distancing, which are an absolute necessity in these unprecedented times.

Therefore, Court concluded its order stating that although the complete prohibition of practices which are essential to our religions is an extraordinary measure, it is very much in proportion to the unprecedented situation being faced, owing to the pandemic.

Right to practise and propagate religion has been made subject to public order, morality and health, even under the Constitution of India.

In view of the above, public interest litigation was dismissed.[Roshan Khan v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 987, decided on 29-08-2020]


V.M. Zaidi, Senior Advocate, S.F.A. Naqvi, Senior Advocate, S.K.A. Rizvi,  K.K. Roy, Counsels for the petitioners, S.P. Singh, Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by A.N. Rai, Counsel for the Union of India, Ramanand Pandey, and Additional Chief Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the State.

Appointments & TransfersNews

Supreme Court Collegium approves the proposal for appointment of following Additional Judges of Allahabad High Court as Permanent Judges of that High Court:

  • Justice Prakash Padia,
  • Justice Alok Mathur,
  • Justice Pankaj Bhatia,
  • Justice Saurabh Lavania,
  • Justice Vivek Varma,
  • Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh,
  • Justice Piyush Agrawal,
  • Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,
  • Justice Jaspreet Singh,
  • Justice Rajeev Singh,
  • Justice Manju Rani Chauhan,
  • Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar,
  • Dr. Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,
  • Justice Manish Mathur,
  • Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,
  • Justice Ram Krishna Gautam,
  • Justice Umesh Kumar,
  • Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,
  • Justice Anil Kumar-IX,
  • Justice Rajendra Kumar-IV,
  • Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,
  • Justice Vikas Kunvar Srivastav,
  • Justice Virendra Kumar Srivastava,
  • Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta,
  • Justice Sushri Ghandikota Sri Devi,
  • Justice Narendra Kumar Johari,
  • Justice Raj Beer Singh,
  • Justice Ajit Singh.

Supreme Court Collegium

[Collegium Statement dt. 24-08-2020]

Appointments & TransfersNews

Collegium Statement

Supreme Court Collegium approves the proposal for elevation of the following Judicial Officers, as Judges of the Allahabad High Court:

  • Sanjay Kumar Pachori,
  • Subhash Chandra Sharma,
  • Subhash Chand, and
  • Saroj Yadav.

Supreme Court of India

[Collegium Statement st. 14-08-2020]

COVID 19Hot Off The PressNews

In view of the rapid surge in the number of active Corona Virus cases in Prayagraj and Lucknow, Chief Justice directs that there shall be no sitting of Courts on 12th, 13th and 14th of August, 2020 in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

On the aforementioned dates, only urgent matters mentioned before the Chief Justice and Senior Judge at Lucknow, respectively, shall be taken and no other Court shall be having sitting.

There shall be no physical/e-filing on 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th and 16th August, 2020.

Read the Order, here: ORDER


Allahabad High Court

[Order dt. 09-08-2020]

Case BriefsCOVID 19High Courts

Allahabad High Court: A Division Bench of Govind Mathur, CJ and Ramesh Sinha, J., while observing that, though the process of “Unlock” had been started yet movement of ordinary people in several areas is restricted.

Thus Keeping in mind the overall objective conditions, Court issued the following directions:

  • All interim orders passed by the Allahabad High Court well as at Lucknow, all the District Courts, Civil Courts, Family Courts, Labour Courts, Industrial Tribunals and all other Tribunals in the State over which this Court has power of superintendence, which have been expired subsequent to 19th March, 2020 or are due to expire within a period of one month from today, will continue to operate upto 29th June, 2020.  Those interim orders which are not of a limited duration and are to operate till further orders will remain unaffected;
  • If a bail has been granted in anticipation as an interim measure for a specific period and that period is going to expire on or before 10th June, 2020, the same shall stand extended upto 29th June, 2020.
  • If any under trial or juvenile in conflict has been enlarged on bail through a judicial order and the period for such enlargement is going to expire on or before 14th June, 2020, the same shall stand extended upto 29th June, 2020.
  • If any orders of eviction, dispossession or demolition are already passed by the High Court, District or Civil Courts, the same shall remain in abeyance till 29th June, 2020 or having any order order by the court competent, whichever is earlier.

Petition for writ to be listed on 26th June, 2020. [State of U.P.,In Re;  2020 SCC OnLine All 742 ; decided on 08-06-2020]

Appointments & TransfersNews

President appoints Justice Biswanath Somadder, Judge of the Allahabad High Court, to be the Chief Justice of the Meghalaya High Court with effect from the date he assumes charge of his office.


Ministry of Law and Justice

[Notification dt. 23-04-2020]

Appointments & TransfersNews

Transfer Order

President Orders transfer of Justice Alok Singh of Uttaranchal High Court to Allahabad High Court.


Ministry of Law and Justice

[Notification dt. 27-03-2020]