# Abdul Hai and Others v. Union of India & another

- **Citation:** (2012) 2 ILRA 884
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-05-04
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21952 of 2012
- **Bench:** Amitava Lala, Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/abdul-hai-and-others-v-union-of-india-another-42195
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226readwith order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C.-Trail
Court allowed impleadment Applicationrevision also dismissed-Writ Court can
not act as Court of Appeal-unless order
impugned found illogical of suffering
from
procedural
irregularities-no
interference
called
far-Petition
Dismissed.

Held: Para 7

Considering the facts and circumstances
of the case, I find no illegality or
irregularity in the order impugned in this
writ petition. Moreover, impleadment
would necessarily not mean that their
claims are being accepted. Petitioner has
right to contest the matter before the
Trial Court. I find no force in this writ
petition. It is trite in law that in
considering the challenge to decisions,
Courts will not interfere as if they are
sitting in appeal over the decisions. In
essence, the test is to see whether there
is any infirmity in the decision making
process and not in the decision itself.
Thus, the Court cannot interfere with the
decisions like this unless it was illogical
or suffers from procedural impropriety or
was shocking to the conscience of the
Court.

## Text

884 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

7. Learned A.G.A. has produced the
copy of the order dated 29th August, 2011
passed by the D.I.G., Allahabad by which
he has ordered for investigation in
pursuance of the provisions contained under
Section 173 (8), Cr.P.C. before this Court
along with the case diary and after perusal
of the same it transpires that the contention
of the learned counsel for the applicants that
reinvestigation was ordered by the D.I.G. in
view of the provisions contained under
Section 173 (8), Cr.P.C. has no force.

8. From a perusal of the order-sheet of
the case, it appears that the learned
magistrate has taken cognizance of the
offence again on the basis of supplementary
charge-sheet vide order dated 7.1.2012
which is not sustainable in the eye of law,
hence the order of the magistrate only in
that respect by which he has taken again
cognizance is struck down. However, if the
Magistrate was passing an order on the
basis of the supplementary charge-sheet
after due application of his mind to the facts
collected during further investigation and
was asking the accused to appear in respect
of other offences also, it could be treated as
another order of summoning and that the
magistrate in my considered view, being the
court of original jurisdiction in that behalf,
is not precluded to do.

9. Learned Magistrate is directed to
proceed with the case taking into account all
the materials available on record including
those which were collected during further
investigation under Section 173 (8), Cr.P.C.
and examine the offences disclosed against
the applicants at the time of framing
charges.

10. No ground for quashing the entire
proceedings is made out, the same is hereby
refused.

11. Applicants are directed to appear
before the court below within two weeks
from today as ordered by the court below
vide order dated 26.5.2012.

12. With the above observations, the
application stands disposed of.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.05.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMITAVA LALA, J.
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21952 of 2012

Abdul Hai and Others
 ...Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Gopal Krishna Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Abu Sufiyan Azmi
A.S.G.I.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Passport-Delay
in
issuancerepresentation-remained
unhearddirection to decide within 15 days if no
legal impediment-aggrieved party may
approach before Permanent Lok Adalatseeking
compensation
for
delay
in
issuance of Passport.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amitava Lala, J.)

Amitava
Lala,
J.--
When
the
representation dated 28.11.2011 has been
filed for non issuance of pass port annexing
a judicial order, we fail to understand as to
why so much delay is being caused.
Therefore, in disposing the writ petition, at
the stage of admission, we direct he
2 All] Nafisul Hasan V. III-Addl. District Judge Deoria and others
885
authority concerned to consider the same if
any legal impediment is not available and
pass appropriate order as expeditiously as
possible preferably within a period of 15
days from the date of communication of this
order upon giving fullest opportunity of
hearing to the petitioners in accordance with
law.

2. No order is passed as to costs.

3. Now-a-days, we find that so many
cases with regard to delay of issuance of
pass port are coming forward before the
Court which are unnecessarily consuming
the valuable Court's time, as a result
whereof we observe herein that in case of
such default, any party can approach to the
permanent Lok Adalat, Lucknow for the
purpose of expeditious efficacious remedy.
In case any of the parties is compelled to
proceed before the permanent Lok Adalat in
such type of situation, he/she will also be
entitled to claim for compensation for
unnecessary delay.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.07.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNIL HALI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23213 of 1999

Nafisul Hasan

 ...Petitioner
Versus
III-Addl.
District
Judge
Deoria
And
Others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.A. Lari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Sri Vivekanand Yaday

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226readwith order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C.-Trail
Court allowed impleadment Applicationrevision also dismissed-Writ Court can
not act as Court of Appeal-unless order
impugned found illogical of suffering
from
procedural
irregularities-no
interference
called
far-Petition
Dismissed.

Held: Para 7

Considering the facts and circumstances
of the case, I find no illegality or
irregularity in the order impugned in this
writ petition. Moreover, impleadment
would necessarily not mean that their
claims are being accepted. Petitioner has
right to contest the matter before the
Trial Court. I find no force in this writ
petition. It is trite in law that in
considering the challenge to decisions,
Courts will not interfere as if they are
sitting in appeal over the decisions. In
essence, the test is to see whether there
is any infirmity in the decision making
process and not in the decision itself.
Thus, the Court cannot interfere with the
decisions like this unless it was illogical
or suffers from procedural impropriety or
was shocking to the conscience of the
Court.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sunil Hali, J.)

1. The only ground taken in this writ
petition is that learned Trial Court has
wrongly allowed an application under
Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment of
respondents vide order dated 4.9.1993.
Revision against this order has also been
dismissed vide order dated 8.2.1999.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material on
record.

3. The general rule in regard to
impleadment of parties is that the plaintiff