Apr - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

More documents

Recommendations

Info

492 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011 sponsored scheme and not otherwise. In the present case, the provisions of U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 has not been resorted to by respondent no. 1 nor recovery has been initiated under the 1972 Act hence, the said Full Bench judgment has no application in the facts of the present case. 13. In the writ petition, it has also been alleged that recovery is time barred under the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act. Under section 92 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, the time for execution is provided as 12 years. No foundation has been laid down in the writ petition as to how the issuance of certificate under section 95-A of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act is barred by any law of limitation. Due to above reason, the above submission has not been pressed. 14. No ground has been made out to quash the recovery certificate as well as citation issued by the Tahsildar for recovery. The petitioner is not entitled for any relief. However, as contended by learned counsel for the respondents, recovery can be effected by any means other than auction of the mortgaged land of the petitioner, which is less than 3.125 acre. 15. Subject to above, the writ petition is dismissed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.04.2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE AMITAVA LALA, J. THE HON'BLE SANJAY MISHRA, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21663 of 2011 Vikas Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of U.P. and another ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri R.N.Singh Sri G.K. Singh Sri V.K.Singh Counsel for the Respondents: Sri M.C. Chaturvedi (C.S.C.) Sri Ramanand Pandey (S.C.) Sri Ravindra Kumar Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh Constitution of India, Article 226- maintainability of writ petition-affidavit filed by Parokar-and not by Petitioner without disclosing identity or connection with Petitioners-when writ of certionary or mandamus can not be issued on affidavit of Power of Attorney holder-writ filed by Pairokar not maintainable. Held: Para 2 Supporting affidavit of the pairokar speaks that the averments of all the paragraphs of the writ petition are true to his personal knowledge. But in paragraph-7 of the writ petition, where the allegations are made against the Chief Minister of the State and the Chairman of the Noida authority, it appears to be based on the informations of property dealer/s even without disclosing the identity of such person/s. No such persons are even made party respondents. Against this background,
1 All Vikas Singh and others V. State of U.P. and another 493 prima facie writ petition appears to be unsustainable in nature. (Delivered by Hon'ble Amitava Lala, J.) 1. Amitava Lala, J.-- Out of four petitioners, three are individuals and the other one is a company through one Dr. Harsh Mahajan claiming to be its Managing Director without any supporting affidavit of competency. The whole writ petition is not filed by any of the petitioners but with supporting affidavit of one Naunidh Singh Arora, aged about 25 years, son of Sri M.S. Arora, B-47, Sarvodaya Enclave, New Delhi-17 claiming himself to be pairokar of the petitioners, however, without disclosing any connection between himself and the petitioners. Cloud can not be dispelled from the mind of the Court about the questionable identity of the deponent. Moreover, this Court has already held that even a power of attorney holder has no right to get an order in the nature of writ of certiorari or mandamus, in 2010 (3) ADJ 319 (DB) (Vice Admiral, Rustam Khusro Shapoor Ji Gandhi and others Vs. State of U.P. and others). The relevant part of such judgement is quoted hereunder: ".......In any event, a further question can arise before this Court whether a writ of Certiorari or Mandamus can be issued in favour of the Power of Attorney holder, on which there is a direct judgement of this Court being in Dr. Prabhu Nath Prasad Gupta v. State of U.P. and others, 2003 (4) AWC 3010, which has held that the writ petition by Power of Attorney holder of the petitioner seeking relief in the nature of writ of Certiorari for aggrieved person is not maintainable. The only exception is in respect of writ of Habeas Corpus and writ of Quo Warranto. We have also verified such ratio in the Division Bench judgment of this Court to which one of us (Amitava Lala, J.) was a Member in Bharat Petroleum Corporation limited, Mumbai v. M/s Amar Auto and others, 2008 (5) ADJ 584 (DB), wherein a distinguishing feature arose about maintainability of suit and writ petition by the Power of Attorney holder. It was held therein that as because a plaint or written statement in any suit or memorandum of appeal in any civil appeal are supported by verification, there is a chance to examine authenticity of the person claiming to be the Power of Attorney holder. But neither such mechanism is available to the writ petitioners nor it is based on any verification for further scrutiny. It is based on personal affidavit. It has also been confirmed by further Division Bench presided by one of us (Amitava Lala, J.) in C.M.W.P. No. 44007 of 1998 along with other two matters (Smt. Gurmeet Kaur Kwatra v. Vice-Chairman, Varanasi Development Authority Varanasi and others) by extending the bar up to scope of writ of Mandamus and Prohibition along with writ of Certiorari." 2. Supporting affidavit of the pairokar speaks that the averments of all the paragraphs of the writ petition are true to his personal knowledge. But in paragraph-7 of the writ petition, where the allegations are made against the Chief Minister of the State and the Chairman of the Noida authority, it appears to be based on the informations of property dealer/s even without disclosing the identity of such person/s. No such persons are even made party respondents. Against this background, prima facie writ petition appears to be unsustainable in nature.
Page 1 and 2:
1 All] Siya Ram V. District Judge (
Page 3 and 4:
1 All] Siya Ram V. District Judge (
Page 5 and 6:
1 All] Gopal Singh Visharad V. Jaho
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
1 All] Amanattullah and others V. A
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
1 All] Anis Ahmad @ Chand Babu V. S
Page 31 and 32:
1 All] Ram Ujagar and another V. Sm
Page 33 and 34:
1 All] Ram Ujagar and another V. Sm
Page 35 and 36:
1 All] Dian Nath Chaube V. Central
Page 37 and 38:
1 All] Dian Nath Chaube V. Central
Page 39 and 40:
1 All] Kulwant Singh V. State of U.
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
1 All] Ram Mohan Dayal V. State of
Page 47 and 48:
1 All] Ram Mohan Dayal V. State of
Page 49 and 50:
1 All] Jile Singh V. State of U.P.
Page 51 and 52:
1 All] Union of India and others V.
Page 53 and 54:
1 All] Union of India and others V.
Page 55 and 56:
1 All] Rama Shanker Shukla V. Zila
Page 57 and 58:
1 All] Rama Shanker Shukla V. Zila
Page 59 and 60: 1 All] Ram Pheran Yadav V. Commissi
Page 61 and 62: 1 All Ghaziabad Development Authori
Page 63 and 64: 1 All Ghaziabad Development Authori
Page 65 and 66: 1 All Pankaj Kumar and others V. St
Page 73 and 74: 1 All Dev Sharan Yadav V. State of
Page 75 and 76: 1 All Abdul Aziz Ansari V. State of
Page 77 and 78: 1 All Abdul Aziz Ansari V. State of
Page 79 and 80: 1 All Shiv Om and others V. Distric
Page 81 and 82: 1 All V.V.P. Welfare Association V.
Page 83 and 84: 1 All V.V.P. Welfare Association V.
Page 85 and 86: 1 All Nagina and others V. State of
Page 87 and 88: 1 All Suredra Narain Singh @ Babu V
Page 93 and 94: 1 All Naushad Alam V. State of U.P.
Page 103 and 104: 1 All Harish Chandra V. U.P. Sahkar
Page 109: 1 All Harish Chandra V. U.P. Sahkar
Page 113 and 114: 1 All Vikas Singh and others V. Sta
Page 115 and 116: 1 All Vikas Singh and others V. Sta
show all

Apr - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?