# Abrar Ahmad & Others v. Adheekshak Kendriya Karagar and others

- **Citation:** (2012) 2 ILRA 739
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-05-10
- **Bench:** Dharnidhar Jha, Ramesh Sinha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/abrar-ahmad-others-v-adheekshak-kendriya-karagar-and-others-42267
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Article 226-Habeas
Corpus Petition-seeking direction for
formation of Special Bench dealing with
criminal
appeal,
revisions-pending
before High Court-and to declare the
detention like petitioner contrary to
constitution-petitioners
having
alternative remedy to apply for bailapart from unless confinement-heldillegal-petition not maintainable-if such
direction on such frivolous petitions
issued-very chaotic situations be created
and the unique position of chief Justice
would be jeopardy-for last 3 years no
body turnup to press this petition-inspite
of repented call-itself example that
petitioner more interested in hogging
the lime light than agitating for right
cause-petition dismissed.

Held: Para 6

We cannot direct the Court, under the
circumstance we have just noted. It
would not only be perilous to do but
shall also be a dangerous and hazardous
thing to happen to judicial system. The
Chief Justice of any court is supposed to
be sensitive enough to the pendency and
it is further supposed that His Lordship is
making
all
efforts
to
expedite
the
hearing alongwith his brother judges.
Any one from the public might be publicspirited in highlighting the pendency but
here in the present case we are of the
opinion that the petitioners appears
more interested in hogging the lime-light
than raising and agitating a right cause.
As regards the relief of issuing direction
in the nature of mandamus, etc. to the
court for its expeditious disposal of the
cases, we do not find any reason existing
for our indulgence.
Case law discussed:
Habeas Corpus petition no.30373 of 2009 Ram
Lochan Yadav vs. State of U. P. and others

## Text

2 All] Abrar Ahmad and others V. Adheekshak Kendriya Karagar and others
739
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.05.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DHARNIDHAR JHA, J.
THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. - 11122
of 2010

Abrar Ahmad & Others
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Adheekshak
Kendriya
Karagar
and
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Chandrakesh Mishra
Sri Daya Shankar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate
Sri Amit Sthalekar
Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh
Sri Sudhir Mehrotra

Constitution of India, Article 226-Habeas
Corpus Petition-seeking direction for
formation of Special Bench dealing with
criminal
appeal,
revisions-pending
before High Court-and to declare the
detention like petitioner contrary to
constitution-petitioners
having
alternative remedy to apply for bailapart from unless confinement-heldillegal-petition not maintainable-if such
direction on such frivolous petitions
issued-very chaotic situations be created
and the unique position of chief Justice
would be jeopardy-for last 3 years no
body turnup to press this petition-inspite
of repented call-itself example that
petitioner more interested in hogging
the lime light than agitating for right
cause-petition dismissed.

Held: Para 6

We cannot direct the Court, under the
circumstance we have just noted. It
would not only be perilous to do but
shall also be a dangerous and hazardous
thing to happen to judicial system. The
Chief Justice of any court is supposed to
be sensitive enough to the pendency and
it is further supposed that His Lordship is
making
all
efforts
to
expedite
the
hearing alongwith his brother judges.
Any one from the public might be publicspirited in highlighting the pendency but
here in the present case we are of the
opinion that the petitioners appears
more interested in hogging the lime-light
than raising and agitating a right cause.
As regards the relief of issuing direction
in the nature of mandamus, etc. to the
court for its expeditious disposal of the
cases, we do not find any reason existing
for our indulgence.
Case law discussed:
Habeas Corpus petition no.30373 of 2009 Ram
Lochan Yadav vs. State of U. P. and others

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dharnidhar Jha, J.)

1. This petition is of the year 2010 and
in spite of the same being listed is not being
prosecuted by the petitioners, as none
appears on their behalf on each day, the
same is being called out, as such, we are
forced to hear Sri Sudhir Saxena, who has
been assisting the Court as the counsel of
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

2. The prayers which have been made
in the present petition are as under :-

1.That this Court should issue writ in
the nature of habeas corpus, order or
direction so as to deciding or hearing the
criminal revision petitions, criminal appeals
of
different
nature
and
other
such
proceedings in which cases the persons are
interested which are pending before this
Court;

2.That the court should issue writ of
habeas corpus and should declare the
detention of the accused like the present
740 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
petitioners who have been convicted and
should declare their further detention as
against the Constitution and law and should
direct their release.

3.This court should issue the writ of
habeas corpus or of mandamus to itself and
should direct the hearing of appeals pending
against the judgments of conviction passed
in the cases of Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substance Act and further
direct
that
appropriate
Benches
be
constituted for granting reliefs as prayed for,
in different proceedings.

4.Any other relief this Court deems fit
to be granted, besides the last 4th relief,
costs of the present proceedings.

3. The High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad has filed replies to the petition
and has submitted, as may appear from
paragraph 4 onwards that statutory rights of
appeal or of revision, being exercised by
different convicted persons including the
present petitioners appeal/ revision were
duly filed before the appropriate benches
and due process of law was observed. When
the prayer for bail of the petitioners was
taken up for hearing an appropriate orders
either in the nature of rejection or allowing
prayer have been passed. It was contended
that as remedy was available under law,
then the petition itself was not maintainable
as the petitioners have already availed
alternative, efficacious statutory remedy
available to them. So far as the other
prayers are concerned it was contended that
the Rules of the Court specially Chapter
XXI were clear as to how the Habeas
Corpus petitions have to be filed and that
clearly
points
out
that
unless
the
confinement was illegal, no such petition
could be maintainable. It was further
brought to our notice that similar prayer has
been decided by the court in Habeas Corpus
petition no.30373 of 2009 Ram Lochan
Yadav vs. State of U. P. and others and it
was held that a convict could not claim
himself to be illegally detained as such no
remedy could be availed by him under
article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India.

4. We might be sitting on the judicial
side of the court but the administrative side
of the court is also the judicial acts of the
judges towards administration of justice. If
each one of us start issuing direction on
such frivolous petitions then not only a
chaotic situation shall be created, but the
very position of Hon'ble the Chief Justice
which is unique in constitution of the High
Court would also be put to jeopardy.

5. It is true that the petitioners have
shown their concern about pendency of
different petitions or matters yearwise
before this Court but the petitioners lack of
courage to point out that the sanctioned
strength of this Court being of 160 judges,
just one month prior from today, our
number was only 75 which has now been
increased to 86. This Court is still
functioning almost under half of its strength
and the pendency which has been pointed
out by the petitioners simply appear a
particular task as regards the number of
Judges which this Court is having today on
its bench. Pendency is not the creation of
the Judges. This petition should itself be an
example as to how the pendency is
increased because after having filed the
petition in 2010, the petitioners have not
been at pains to ensure that the petition is
properly prosecuted and the court is allowed
to pass a proper order. This petition
remained pending for two years, might be
for some reasons, but since last week or so
we had been grappling with the situation of
2 All] Yatendra Kumar Singh V. The Commissioner, Moradabad and others
741
not having before with us the learned
counsel for the petitioners so as to hearing
the petition and disposing it of and could,
legitimately, point out that this petition at
least remained pending before us since the
day it was listed before us. Only because the
learned counsel was not appearing, the
absence of the counsel has forced us to hear
the matter finally and decide it.

6. We cannot direct the Court, under
the circumstance we have just noted. It
would not only be perilous to do but shall
also be a dangerous and hazardous thing to
happen to judicial system. The Chief Justice
of any court is supposed to be sensitive
enough to the pendency and it is further
supposed that His Lordship is making all
efforts to expedite the hearing alongwith his
brother judges. Any one from the public
might be public-spirited in highlighting the
pendency but here in the present case we
are of the opinion that the petitioners
appears more interested in hogging the
lime-light than raising and agitating a right
cause. As regards the relief of issuing
direction in the nature of mandamus, etc. to
the court for its expeditious disposal of the
cases, we do not find any reason existing for
our indulgence.

7. We have reasons to believe that
Hon'ble
Judges
of
the
Court
are
conscientious and they are making valiant
efforts in their own way to dispose of as
many number of cases, as could be allowed
to be disposed of, by the parties.

8. While we were perusing the
petition and hearing Sri Mehrotra, we had
an impression coming out of the record and
that the main attempt of the petitioners was
to short circuit the legal procedure and to
get a relief which could not be granted to
them in the garb of this petition which has
been filed under the heading of 'Habeas
Corpus Petition'.

9. This petition, in our considered
view, is out and out unnecessary and
appears frivolous and the same is dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.05.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11725 of 1998

Yatender Kumar Singh
 ...Petitioner
Versus
The Commissioner Moradabad Division,
Moradabad and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
R.K.Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article-226correction
Deed-deficiency
of
Rs.
1778.50/-with
penalty-challenged
on
ground-stamp duty already paid at the
time
of
Registration-consequent
to
partition-present
deed
merely
correction-hence additional stamp duty
can not be imposed-held-misconceivedconsequent to partition certain portion
came in share of petitioner-requires
registration
-demand
of
additional
stamp-proper.

Held: Para 6

In
the
opinion
of
the
Court,
the
subsequent transaction was a fresh
transaction, inasmuch as, it was a
transfer of a specific property. In the
circumstances,
this
second
documentation cannot be said to be a
mere correction and was a complete
transaction conferring distinct right, title