Apr - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

More documents

Recommendations

Info

440 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011 birth counts as a whole day; and he attains a specified age on the day next before the anniversary of his birthday.” 11. We have come across two English decisions on the point. In Rex. v. Scoffin, the question was whether the accused had or had not completed 21 years of age. Section 10 (1) of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914 provides that a person might be sent to Borstal if it appears to the court that he is not more than 21 years of age. The accused was born on February 17, 1909. Lord Hewart, C.J. Held that the accused completed 21 years of age on February 17, 1930 which was the Commission day of Manchester Assizes. 12. In Re Shurey, Savory v. Shurey, the question that arose for decision was this: Does a person attain a specified age in law on the anniversary of his or her birthday, or on the day preceding that anniversary After reviewing the earlier decisions, Sargent, J. said that law does not take cognizance of part of a day and the consequence is that person attains the age of twenty-one years or of twenty-five years, or any specified age, on the day preceding the anniversary of his twenty-first or twenty-fifth birthday or other birthday, as the case may be. 13. From Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn., vol. 45, para 1143 at p. 550 it appears that Section 9 of the Family Law Reforms Act, 1969 has abrogated the old common law rule stated in Re Shurey Savory v. Shurey. 14. It is in recognition of the difference between how a person's age is legally construed and how it is understood in common parlance. The legislature has expressly provided in Section 4 of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 that how the age of majority is to be computed. It reads: "4. Age of majority how computed.- In computing the age of any person, the day on which he was born is to be included as a whole day, and he shall be deemed to have attained majority, if he falls within the first paragraph of Section 3, at the beginning of the twenty-first anniversary of that day, and if he falls within the second paragraph of Section 3, at the beginning of the eighteenth anniversary of that day." 6. The section embodies that in computing the age of any person, the day on which he was born is to be included as a whole day and he must be deemed to have attained majority at the beginning of the eighteenth anniversary of that day." On applying the principle laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court on the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner whose date of birth is 01.07.1949 will complete the age of 62 years on 30.06.2011, a day preceding to the petitioner's birth day anniversary i. e. 01.07.2011 and, as such, petitioner has been rightly given notice of his superannuation on attaining the age of 62 years on 30.6.2011. Since 30.6.2011 is the last date of the month as well as end of the academic session, therefore, as per Rule 14 of the U. P. Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of services of Teacher) Rules, 1978 petitioner will retire from service on 30.6.2011. There is no illegality in the impugned notice/order of retirement dated 01.1.2011. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons, the writ petition lacks merits and deserves to be dismissed.
1 All] Ram Pheran Yadav V. Commissioner, Devi Patan Division, Gonda and another 441 8. Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 01.04.2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA,J. Misc. Single No. - 1979 of 2011 Ram Pheran Yadav ...Petitioner Versus Commissioner, Devi Patan Division, Gonda and another ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Avadhesh Kumar Singh Counsel for the Respondent: C.S.C. Constitution of India, Article 226- attachment of petitioner-fair price shop-on ground after dismissal of Appeal in default stay order not extended-held before attachment the authority concern ought to have give opportunity to get the order extended-order impugned not sustainable. Held: Para 9 Once, the Appellate Authority had passed an interim order in the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of respondent no.2 by which he had cancelled the petitioner's fair price shop license, staying the implementation and operation of the order passed by the opposite party no.2 and the stay order could not be extended not on account of any fault on behalf of the petitioner but due to nonavailability of the respondent no.1 on the date fixed, it was incumbent upon the respondent no.2 to have given a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to get the interim order extended before proceeding to attach the card-holders of his fair price shop with some other shop. (Delivered by Hon'ble B.K.Narayana,J. ) 1. Notice on behalf of opposite party nos. 1 and 2 has been accepted by learned Chief Standing Counsel. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel and perused the records. 3. Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make amendments in the prayer of the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that license of fair price shop of the petitioner was cancelled by the respondent no.2 vide order dated 06.01.201. Against the said order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent no.1 which was registered as Appeal No. 80-03 and in which on 12.01.2011 an interim order was passed by the respondent no.1 in favour of the petitioner by which the effect and implementation of the order passed by the opposite party no.2 was directed to be kept in abeyance till 23.02.2011. 5. It appears that the respondent no.1 was not available on 23.02.2011, as a result, the interim order dated 12.01.2011 granted in favour of the petitioner could not be extended, although the petitioner had moved an application in this regard on that very date, as a result, the card-holders of the petitioner's shop were attached with some other shop by the respondent no.2 vide his order dated 18.03.2011, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure No.4 to the writ petition. 6. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the
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: 1 All] Gopal Singh Visharad V. Jaho
Page 23 and 24: 1 All] Amanattullah and others V. A
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 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: 1 All] Rama Shanker Shukla V. Zila
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 and 110:
1 All Harish Chandra V. U.P. Sahkar
Page 111 and 112:
1 All Vikas Singh and others V. Sta
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
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?