# 452 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Dildar Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 10 ILRA 451
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-09-27
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 8149 of 2023
- **Bench:** Shree Prakash Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/452-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-dildar-ahmad-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49349
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section
207 - Power to detain vehicles used
without certificate of registration permit,
etc. - Transport Commissioner's Duty -
Ensures
vehicle
release
under
Motor
Vehicle Act - If detained, submit challani
report within seven days - Circular issued
by transport department.(Para - 16)

Vehicle registered as per law with State
Transport Authority - permit for plighting the
vehicle - E-Challan - vehicle ceased on
30.06.2023 - reasons recorded in challan report
- do not tally with reasons for detaining vehicle
as provided under section 207 of Act -
application for release filed on 15.07.2023 -
after seven days of period of time - prescribed
time for mandatorily sending challani report to
court concerned - trial court rejected release
application.(Para - 9,10,17,18)

HELD:- Applicant given liberty to move a fresh
release application within four weeks, with the
trial court deciding within two weeks if the
application is filed. Transport Commissioner
required releasing all vehicles under section 207
of the Motor Vehicle Act within a week, and
submitting a challani report within seven days.
(Para -20,21)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E-7)

## Text

10 All. Dildar Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
451
material evidence against the applicant,
submitted the charge sheet and this fact has
also been ignored by the learned trial court..

19. He further argued that the
complainant is using the criminal proceeding as
a tool, for some amount, which probably is in
dispute between Sanjeev Agarwal and the
complainant and the applicant is being made
scapegoat. He added that the applicant is of
considerable age and because of throwing him
to face the criminal proceeding, he is suffering
hard.

20. During the course of his arguments,
he has also pointed out that one of the accused,
namely, Sanjeev Agarwal has approached the
Apex Court by way of moving SLP (Cri)
No.9285 of 2021, wherein the criminal
proceeding pursuant to the FIR No. 784 of 2019
dated 24.11.2019, has been stayed on
6.12.2021. The order dated 6.12.2021 passed by
the Apex Court reads as under:-

"Applications for Exemption from
filing c/c of the impugned judgment, official
translation and affidavit are allowed.

Issue notice.

In the meantime, there shall be stay
of the proceedings in pursuance to FIR No.784
of 2019 dated 24.11.2019 registered at P.S.
Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow, Uttar
Pradesh."

21. He submits that order of the Apex
Court is very clear that whole proceeding
arising out of F.I.R. No.784 of 2019 are stayed
but the trial court is still proceeding against the
applicant. Therefore, submission is that the
criminal proceeding against the applicant is
abuse of process of law and the same is liable to
be quashed.

22. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has
vehemently opposed the contention aforesaid
and submits that the applicant is named in the
F.I.R. and there is serious allegation against the
applicant for committing cheat and fraud, in
collusion with the other two accused persons
and after investigation, it was found that the
applicant was involved in committing the
offence and, therefore, after collecting the
substantial evidence against the applicant, the
charge sheet has been filed and, thus, the
learned trial court has rightly took cognizance
and has passed the order for summoning of the
applicant. Therefore, submission is that the
applicant is not entitled for any relief.

23. Prime facie, there seems to be
substance in the contention of the learned
counsel for the applicant, therefore, the matter
requires consideration.

24. Counter affidavit be filed by the State
within a period of three weeks.

25. A week thereafter is granted to the
applicant to file Rejoinder affidavit.

26. List thereafter.

27. Till the next date of listing,
criminal proceedings of Criminal Case
No.81893 of 2019 (State Vs. Sanjeev
Agarwal), arising out of Crime No.0784 of
2019, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468,
471, 408 of the I.P.C., Police Station
Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow, shall
remain stayed, so far as the applicant is
concerned.
---------
(2023) 10 ILRA 451
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.09.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 8149 of 2023
452 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Dildar Ahmad ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Abdul
Samad,
Sonu
Gupta,
Syed
Muhammad Abid

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section
207 - Power to detain vehicles used
without certificate of registration permit,
etc. - Transport Commissioner's Duty -
Ensures
vehicle
release
under
Motor
Vehicle Act - If detained, submit challani
report within seven days - Circular issued
by transport department.(Para - 16)

Vehicle registered as per law with State
Transport Authority - permit for plighting the
vehicle - E-Challan - vehicle ceased on
30.06.2023 - reasons recorded in challan report
- do not tally with reasons for detaining vehicle
as provided under section 207 of Act -
application for release filed on 15.07.2023 -
after seven days of period of time - prescribed
time for mandatorily sending challani report to
court concerned - trial court rejected release
application.(Para - 9,10,17,18)

HELD:- Applicant given liberty to move a fresh
release application within four weeks, with the
trial court deciding within two weeks if the
application is filed. Transport Commissioner
required releasing all vehicles under section 207
of the Motor Vehicle Act within a week, and
submitting a challani report within seven days.
(Para -20,21)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E-7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shree Prakash
Singh, J.)

1. Heard Abdul Samad, learned
counsel for the applicant, Smt Nusrat
Jahan, learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the record.

2. Instant application has been filed
with a prayer to set aside the order dated
27.07.2023 passed by the Learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Rae Bareli, in Misc.
Case No. 1726/23 Dildar Ahmad vs. State
of U.P., U/S-207 MV Act, P.S.- Kotwali
Nagar, District Rae Bareli, and also quash
the E-Challan UP 1442353063170614
(Notice U/S- 133 MV Act) of the Motor
Vehicle No. U.P. 33 BT 6541 dated
30.06.2023 issued by the Traffic Police,
Rae Bareli.

3. The factual matrix of the case is
that the petitioner is the registered owner of
the Motor Vehicle No. U.P. 33 BT 6541
(Minibus-LPV) and he was granted all
Uttar Pradesh permit for plighting his
vehicle. On 30.06.2023, opposite party no.
2, unlawfully issued challan of vehicle no.
UP 33 BT 6541 under section 207 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to
as 'Act 1988') and over the challan, reasons
have also been transcribed. Further, after
the aforesaid challan was done, vehicle was
ceased
and
thereafter,
the
applicant
approached this Court, while filing the Writ
C no. 5828 of 2023, (Dildar Ahmad Vs
state of U.P. & Others), wherein the liberty
was granted to the applicant to approach
the Judicial Magistrate concerned and
moved
appropriate
objections.
On
15.07.2023, in compliance of the order
dated 14.07.2023, the petitioner moved an
application for release of his vehicle, but
without considering the objections in a
right perspective, the application was
dismissed vide order dated 27.07.2023
which in fact is against the circulars issued
by the State Government time to time and
also against the provisions envisaged under
the Act.
10 All. Dildar Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
453

4. The contention of learned counsel
for the applicant is that the vehicle can be
ceased under the 'Act, 1988', when the
owner is failed to show the certificate of
registration or permit of vehicle etc.
Section 207 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is
quoted hereinunder:-

"207. Power to detain vehicles
used without certificate of registration
permit, etc.-(1)Any police officer or other
person authorised in this behalf by the
State Government may, if he has reason to
believe that a motor vehicle has been or is
being used in contravention of the
provisions of section 3 or section 4 or
section 39 or without the permit required
by sub-section (1) of section 66 or in
contravention or any condition of such
permit relating to the route on which or the
area in which or the purpose for which the
vehicle may be used, seize and detain the
vehicle, in the prescribed manner and for
this purpose take or cause to be taken any
steps he may consider proper for the
temporary safe custody of the vehicle:
Provided that where any such officer or
person has reason to believe that a motor
vehicle has been or is being used in
contravention of section 3 or section 4 or
without the permit required by sub-section
(1) of section 66 he may, instead of seizing
the
vehicle, seize
the
certificate
of
registration of the vehicle and shall issue
an acknowledgment in respect thereof.

(2)Where a motor vehicle has
been seized and detained under sub-section
(1), the owner or person incharge of the
motor vehicle may apply to the transport
authority or any officer authorised in this
behalf by the State Government together
with the relevant documents for the release
of the vehicle and such authority or officer
may, after verification of such documents,
by order release the vehicle subject to such
conditions as the authority or officer may
deem fit to impose."

5. Referring the aforesaid provisions,
he submits that the reasons which have
been recorded on the challan are different
than the terms and conditions which are
applied for invoking the powers to detain
the vehicle under section 207 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988.

6. He further added that there are two
circulars issued by the State Government
i.e. dated 14.08.2008 and 30.12.2010 which
are enough to show that all the transport
authorities of State of U.P. were directed to
submit challan report, within seven days
before the court concerned and whereafter,
it was incumbent upon the court concerned
to
release
the
vehicle
ensuring
the
compliance of conditions mentioned in the
judgment of Honorable Apex Court, in
pursuance of which the circulars were
issued.

7. Concluding his arguments, he
submits that learned trial court ignoring the
settled proposition of law as well as
provisions of law, dismissed the application
of the applicant, vide impugned order dated
27.07.2023, which is erroneous and thus, is
liable to be set aside.

8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the
State submitted that disputed fact has been
raised by counsel of the applicant which
could not be agitated while invoking the
jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.P.C. He
further submits that the circulars dated
14.08.2008 and 13.12.2010 have already
been issued by the State Government and in
compliance of the order passed by this
Court and the instructions have been issued
and thus, there seems to be no violation or
ignorance on the part of the learned trial
454 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
court so far as the order dated 27.07.2023 is
concerned.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the
parties and after perusal of material placed on
record, it transpires that a vehicle no. U.P. 33
BT 6541 (Minibus-LPV) was registered by
the transport authorities and the permit for all
U.P. for plighting the vehicle was given, but
later on the vehicle was got challaned and
reasons were recorded thereof, and once the
present applicant after the order passed by
this Court in Writ C no. 5828 of 2023, moved
an application before the trial court, the trial
court rejected the same vide order dated
27.07.2023, while noticing the provision of
section 207 of the Act, 1988, which is under
challenge.

10. When this Court examines the
aforesaid issue, it emerges that it is an
admitted fact that the vehicle was registered
as per law with the State Transport Authority
and the permit for plighting the vehicle was
also there. So far as the challan by virtue of
which vehicle was ceased, the reasons were
recorded in the challan report itself, which do
not tally with the reasons for detaining the
vehicle as provided under section 207 of the
Act, 1988.

11. This Court has noticed the fact that
the coordinate bench of this Court while
dealing with the identical issue passed the
order
in
a
case
namely,
Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No. 19846 of
2008 (Krishna Dev Mishra versus State of
U.P. and anothers), passed the order dated
04.08.2008.

12. The order dated 04.08.2008 is
quoted hereinunder:-

"Heard learned counsel for the
applicant and learned AGA.

The vehicle of the applicant was
seized on 30.06.2008. Even after a gap of
near 3 months Challan report was not
submitted before the concerned Magistrate by
tho R.TO/A.R.T.O., nor any complaint was
filed against the applicant. They vehicle of
the applicant is rottening with the R.TO.

Many cases have come up before
this Court in which this Court has ordered
that the Challani report must be submitted to
the Court forthwith.

Any dereliction in sending the
Challani report by the authorities under the
Motorcycle Act is viewed as a malpractice,
which has been generated, illegally. Inspite of
Division Bench order by this Court, the said
malpractice still continues. It seems that
the Motor Vehicle Department is thriving
on
such legal
act, which is
most
condemnable.

Sri S.L. Keserrwani, learned AGA
wants some time to see that Challani
reports are sent to the proper Court within
a week of seizure of vehicle. At his request,
I post this matter which will again come up
on 18 August 2008. Meanwhile, If the
proper direction is not issued by the
Transport Commissioner U.P. In this
respect, he is directed to be personally
present before this Court to explain as to
why his department is resorting to such
nefarious activities which are Indicative of
corrupt practice.

Meanwhile,
I
direct
Motor
Vehicle No. UP5310820, which has been
seized by the ARTO department to be
released in favour of the applicant on his
executive personal bond of Rs. 5 lacks with
two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of C.J.M. concerned. However
the following conditions are Imposed on the
applicant that he will not transfer or
alienate old vehicle in any manner, he will
not change the colour of the vehicle, he will
keep said vehicle in his possession which
10 All. Dildar Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
455
will be subject to the final out come of this
application.

Copy of this order be given to
learned AGA free of charge by tomorrow
i.e. on 05.08.2008."

13. After the order dated 04.08.2008,
the State Government issued instructions
vide circular dated 14.08.2008 and at the
same time the order dated 04.08.2008 was
also challenged before the Hon'ble Apex
Court vide Special Leave Appeal (Crl)
CRLMP. NO (s). 20286-20288 of 2009,
which
was
heard
and
decided
on
30.11.2009 and the following order was
passed:-

"The Special Leave Petitions are
dismissed on the ground of inordinate
delay."

14. A modification application was
moved
in
Criminal
Miscellaneous
Application No. 19846 of 2008 and
considering the same, this Court has
modified the order dated 04.08.2008 vide
its order dated 10.09.2008 and after the
modification is done by this Court, the
State Government again issued a circular
dated 30.12.2010 and certain direction and
instructions were issued. The circular dated
30.12.2010 is quoted herein under:-

"अविि कराना है शक सम्भािीय पररवहन
अशधकारी, बस्िी द्वारा शद० 25.6.2008 को बस्िी नन्दौर
मािस पर शबना परशमट शकराये की सवाररयां ढोने, पररवहन वाहन
का कर। अशिररक्त कर जमा न होने एवं वाहन के कोई प्रपत्र
प्रस्िुल न करने के अशभयोि में जीप संख्या- यू.पी. - 53/
टी0820 को थाना पुरानी बस्िी शजला बस्िी में धारा 207
के अन्ििसि बन्द शकया िया था। मुख्य न्याशयक दण्डाशधकारी,
बस्िी द्वारा सम्बशन्धि वाहन स्वाभी के वाहन मुक्त करने के
प्राथसना पत्र को इस आधार पर शदनांक 18.7:2008 को
अस्वीकृि कर शदया िया था शक चालाशनंि अशधकारी द्वारा
वाहन का अशभयोि पत्र प्रस्िुि नहीं शकया िया है। मुख्य
न्याशयक दण्डाशधकारी, बस्िी के इस आदेि से क्षुब्ध होकर
वाहन स्वामी श्री कृष्ण देव शमश्रा द्वारा मा० उच्च न्यायालय,
इलाहाबाद में याशचका सं0-19846/08 दाशखल की ियी
शजसमें मा० उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा सुनवाई करिे हुए शद.
04.8.2008 को यह आदेि पाररि शकये िये शक मोटर
वाहन अशधशनयम, 1988 की धारा 207 के अन्ििसि बंद
वाहनों का अशभयोि पत्र मुख्य न्याशयक दण्डाशधकारी के यहााँ
बाहन के बंद होने के एक सप्ताह के अन्दर प्रेशिि कर शदया
जाय ।

उक्त आदेि के शवरूद्ध सम्भािीय पररवहन
अशधकारी, बस्िी द्वारा मा. उच्च न्यायालय, इलाहाबाद में एक
मोडीशफकेिन प्राथसना पत्र / प्रशििपथ पत्र शद० 08.8.2008
को दाशखल शकया िया। मा० उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा
शवचारोपरान्ि शद० 10.9.2008 को पूवस पाररि आदेि
शदनांक 04.8.2008 को संिोशधि करिे हुए शनम्न आदेि
पाररि शकये िये.

(1) That before releasing the
vehicle to the claimant concerned court
will ensure the depositing of all taxes under
Motor Vehicle Act and if, taxes are not
deposited by the claimant, then vehicle
shall not be released.

(2) If Registration Certificate,
Driving License and Insurance Certificate
are not genuine, the vehicle shall not be
released to the claimant.

(3) If the vehicle is plying without
permit issued from RTO, then vehicle shall
not be released unless clearance is sought
from concerned RTO.

उक्त आदेि के शवरुद्ध मा० उच्चिम न्यायालय में
शविेि अनुमशि याशचका एवं पुनशवसचार याशचका दाशखल की
ियी शकन्िु मा० उच्चिम न्यायालय द्वारा खाररज कर शदया िया
है। अविि कराना है शक िासन के पत्र संख्या - 2233/304-10-1 (22) ररट/08 शदनांक 21.12.2010 द्वारा
अविि कराया िया है शक मा० उच्चिम न्यायालय द्वारा
पुनशवसलोकन याशचका खाररज शकये जाने के फलस्वरूप मा0
उच्च न्यायालय के उक्त आदेि अशन्िम हो चुके हैं, शजनका
456 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
अनुपालन शकया जाना शवशधक रूप से बाध्यकारी है। कदाशचि
कहने की आवश्यकिा नहीं है शक मा० उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा
यह शनदेि शदये िये हैं शक बन्द वाहन का अशभयोि पत्र 07
शदन के अन्दर प्रेशिि शकया जाय और अशभयोि पत्र प्रेशिि
करने के उपरान्ि सम्बशन्धि न्यायालय द्वारा वाहन को अवमुक्त
करने से पूवस (1) सम्बशन्धि न्यायालय द्वारा यह देख शलया
जाये शक वाहन के करों की अदायिी की ियी है अथवा नहीं,
और यशद नहीं िो वाहन को न छोड़ा जाये (2) वाहन का
पंजीयन प्रमाण पत्र ड्राइशवंि लाइसेन्स एवं बीमा प्रमाण पत्र
यशद जैन्यून नहीं है िो वाहन को न छोड़ा जाये। (3)
यशद वाहन शबना परशमंट संचाशलि हो रहा है िो वाहन
िब िक न छोड़ा जाये जब िक शक सम्बशन्धि आर. टी.
ओ. से clearance प्राप्त न कर शलया जाय।

अिः आपको शनदेशिि शकया जािा है शक
मा उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद द्वारा पाररि उक्त आदेिों
का अनुपालन करना सुशनशिि करें। सुलभ संदभस हेिु
मा० उच्च न्यायालय के आदेि शदनांक 04.8.2008
एवं 10.9.2008 की छाया प्रशि संलग्न कर प्रेशिि है।
संलग्नक यथोक्त।"

15. While issuing the abovesaid
circular, all the transport authorities
of the province were directed to send
the challan report within seven days to
the court concerned, whereafter, it is
incumbent upon the court concerned
to consider the application of release
of the vehicle, while ensuring the
compliance
of
the
conditions
as
prescribed in the judgment and order
dated 04.08.2008 and 10.09.2008.

16. The Transport Commissioner
is under bounden duty to ensure that
all
the
vehicles
detained,
under
section 207 of Motor Vehicle Act, if
not released within a week, challani
report shall be submitted before the
court concerned within seven days as
is provided under the circular issued
by the transport department.

17. So far as the present matter is
concerned, the trial court has rejected
the release application on the premises
of the judgment and order in 'Ram
Sevak versus State of U.P. 1996
(CrLJ) 1012 though, he has ignored
the judgment and order rendered in
Krishna Dev Mishra vs State of U.P.
(Criminal Misc. Case No. 19846 of
2008) and upheld by the apex Court,
which holds field now.

18. Further it reveals from
impugned order that the vehicle in
question was seized on 30.06.2023,
whereas the application for release
was filed on 15.07.2023, i.e. after the
seven days of the period of time,
which is the prescribed time for
mandatorily
sending
the
challani
report to the court concerned and
therefore the release application can
be
decided
by
the
trial
court
concerned.

19. In view of the aforesaid
submissions
and
discussions,
the
order dated 27.07.2023 is hereby
set-aside.

20. The applicant is given liberty
to move fresh release. application
within four weeks before the trial court
concerned and if such an application is
filed, the same shall be decided by the trial
court within further period of two weeks, in
light of the observations made hereinabove.

21. The Transport Commissioner shall
ensure that all the vehicles detained under
section 207 of Motor Vehicle Act, if not
released within a week, challani report shall
be submitted before the court concerned
within
seven
days.
10 All. Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
457

22. The instant application is allowed
accordingly.

---------
(2023) 10 ILRA 457
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.09.2023
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI,
J.

Writ C No. 26782 of 2023

Ram Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Mohammad Mustafa

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Pankaj Kumar Gupta

Civil Law - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 -
Sections 67, 136 - Article 226 of the
Constitution of India - Principles of
Natural Justice - Notice vs. Order -
Misappropriation of Gram Sabha Land -
Writ Jurisdiction
The petitioner, Ram Kumar, challenged a notice
dated 13.07.2023 issued by the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate (SDM), Shohratgarh, directing him
to remove his possession from a part of Gata
No. 316 (0.006 Hectare) within seven days,
alleging misappropriation of Gram Sabha land,
failing which action under Section 136 of the
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, would be taken.

Held: (1) The writ petition was allowed, and
the impugned notice dated 13.07.2023 was
quashed. (2) The notice was not a genuine
show-cause
notice
but
a
premeditated
order/direction, lacking opportunity for the
petitioner to defend or rebut the allegations,
violating principles of natural justice as
required under Section 136(3) of the U.P.
Revenue
Code,
2006.
(3)
The
notice
incorrectly cited Section 136, which applies to
unauthorized
occupation,
whereas
the
allegation of misappropriation falls under
Section 67, handled by the Assistant Collector
through summary proceedings, rendering the
notice legally flawed and beyond the SDM's
jurisdiction. (4) The mention of a wrong
provision (Section 136 instead of Section 67)
was not a mere irregularity but a manifest
legal error affecting the petitioner's rights,
distinguishing this case from Vikram Singh
Junior High School Vs District Magistrate. (5)
A
writ
petition
under
Article
226
is
maintainable when a notice is premeditated,
lacks jurisdiction, or violates natural justice,
as per Siemens Ltd. Vs St. of Maharashtra and
Whirlpool
Corporation
Vs
Registrar
of
Trademarks. (6) The respondent authorities
were
granted
liberty
to
initiate
fresh
proceedings under the correct provision
(Section
67),
ensuring
compliance
with
natural justice and providing the petitioner an
opportunity to present his case. (7) The court
emphasized that justice must not only be
done but must be seen to be done, and any
order bad in its inception cannot be sanctified
later, as per Ritesh Tiwari Vs St. of U.P. and
Mangal Prasad Tamoli Vs Narvadeshwar
Mishra.

Case Law Cited:

1. Siemens Ltd. Vs St. of Mah., (2006) 12 SCC
33;

2. Whirlpool Corporation Vs Registrar of
Trademarks, (1998) 8 SCC 1;

3.Vikram Singh Junior High School Vs District
Magistrate, (2002) 9 SCC 509; St. of U.P. Vs
Shatrughan Lal, JT 1998 (6) SC 55;

(Delivered by Hon'ble Syed Qamar
Hasan Rizvi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Mohammad Mustafa,
learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri
Awadhesh Kumar Patel, learned Standing
Counsel for State-respondents No.1, 2 & 3;
Shri Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel
appearing for the Gaon Sabha-respondent