# Akash Kumar & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 446
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-18
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 11887 of 2025
- **Bench:** Dr. Ajay Kumar-Ii
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/akash-kumar-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-54248
- **Pages:** 5

## Text

446 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

79. Looking into the period of delay and casual manner in which the appellant had proceeded
to file the appeal, such kind of trivial and frivolous litigation clogs the wheel of justice and the poor
genuine litigant do not get chance of hearing, this practice has to be stopped. This Court find it a fit
case to impose a cost on the appellants, to curb this practice.

80. Accordingly, a cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) is imposed on the
appellants. The amount of cost will be paid to the widows of C.R.P.F. personnel, who had lost their
lives fighting with Naxalites. Accordingly, the cost shall be paid to the "C.R.P.F. Family Welfare
Association", Block-I, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.

81. Since putting a cost on the State will not solve the problem, the only way to push the
officers to get out the slumber is, if the cost so imposed may be recovered from them. Hence, it is
open for the appellant, if they so desire, to recover the said amount of cost from the officers, who
were responsible for the delay in filing the proceedings before different courts.

82. Before parting, I would like to appreciate my Research Associate, Mr. Utkarsh Shukla, for
his in-depth research and valuable assistance rendered by him in the preparation of this judgment.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 446
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 11887 of 2025

Akash Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Whether the impugned orders are passed without considering the evidence and documents placed on record

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article 227- Power under article 227 of the Constitution is to be
exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within
the bounds of their authority. This Power is not in the nature of power of appellate authority
enabling re-appreciation of evidence- Both the courts have passed reasoned and speaking
orders, which reflect due application of judicial mind- Trial Court has discharged the opposite
party No.5, from the case, which is indicative of the fact that trial Court has applied it's judicial
mind on the facts and evidence available before it- Appellate Court has specifically recorded that
summons which were issued by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Aligarh to
opposite parties, were received by the father of appellants- It cannot be said that appellants
were not aware of the case in question.
Held- No prima facie perversity or illegality is found in the impugned judgment and order of Revisional Court,
as well as in the impugned summoning order of trial Court- Petition dismissed. (E-15)
2 All. Akash Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
447
(Para 5, 9, 10 & 11)

Case Law Cited
Chandra Bhushan Vs. Beni Prasad & ors., (1999) 1 SCC 70; Savitrabai Bhausaheb Kevate & ors. Vs. Raichand
Dhanraj Lunja, (1999) 2 SCC 171); Indian Overseas Bank Vs. Indian Overseas Bank Staff Canteen Workers'
Union (2000) 4 SCC 245; Jasbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2006 ) 8 SCC 294;

List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950

List of Keywords
Powers U/A 227; exercised sparingly; not to enable re-appreciation of evidence; keep the
subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority.

Case Arising From
The impugned order dated 02.12.2024, passed by the Additional Session Judge, Court No.2, Aligarh in
Criminal Appeal No.90 of 2024, (Under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005) by means of which the appeal of the petitioner rejected and ex-parte order dated 26.07.2022 was
affirmed and the impugned order 27.07.2022, passed by the Judicial Magistrate/ Civil Judge (Junior Division),
F.T.C.-01, Aligarh in Case No.408 of 2021, under Section 12,18,19,20,21 and 22 of the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Byas Kumar Prasad, Pradeep Kumar Keshri
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Ajay Kumar-II, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and
perused the material available on record.

2. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the
following prayers:

" I) Issue order or direction and set-aside the impugned order dated 02.12.2024, passed
by the Additional Session Judge, Court No.2, Aligarh in Criminal Appeal No.90 of 2024,
Dharmendra Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and another (Under Section 29 of the Protection
of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005) by means of which the appeal of the petitioner
rejected and ex-parte order dated 26.07.2022 was affirmed.

II) Issue order or direction and set-aside the impugned order 27.07.2022, passed by the
Judicial Magistrate/ Civil Judge (Junior Division), F.T.C.-01, Aligarh in Case No.408 of 2021,
Smt. Sangeeta Vs. Dharmendra Kumar and others, under Section 12,18,19,20,21 and 22 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

III. Issue any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to
meet ends of justice.

IV. Award the cost of this petition to the petitioners"

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that opposite party No.2 filed a false
and frivolous First Information Report dated 03.05.2024, which was registered as Case
448 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Crime No.0111 of 2021, under Sections 147, 323 and 506 IPC, Police Station Dando,
District Aligarh against petitioners and others. Thereafter she filed an application under
Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, in which ex-parte order was passed on 26.07.2022
on the same allegation, in which sister of petitioner No.1was discharged. The aforesaid
impugned order dated 26.07.2022 was challenged by petitioners by way of filing first
appeal before Sessions Judge, Aligarh. Appellate Court was informed that total 5 cases
were pending before the parties, but without considering the pendency of those five cases
as well as evidence and documents placed on record, their revision has been rejected vide
impugned order dated 22.10.2024. It was lastly urged that both impugned orders are bad in
law and are liable to be set-aside.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the above submissions of the learned
counsel for the petitioner by contending that the impugned orders are well reasoned and
have been passed in accordance with law. Learned A.G.A. thus, urges for dismissal of the
present petition.

5. It is well settled that power under Article 227 is of the judicial superintendence,
which cannot be used to up-set conclusions of facts, howsoever erroneous those may be,
unless such conclusions are so perverse or so unreasonable that no Court could ever have
reached them. (Chandra Bhushan Vs. Beni Prasad & ors., (1999) 1 SCC 70; Savitrabai
Bhausaheb Kevate & ors. Vs. Raichand Dhanraj Lunja, (1999) 2 SCC 171).

6. In Indian Overseas Bank Vs. Indian Overseas Bank Staff Canteen Workers'
Union (2000) 4 SCC 245, the Apex Court observed that it is impermissible for the Writ
Court to re-appreciate evidence liberally and drawing conclusions on its own on pure
questions of fact for the reason that it is not exercising appellate jurisdiction over the awards
passed by Tribunal. The findings of fact recorded by the fact finding authority duly
constituted for the purpose ordinarily should be considered to have become final. The same
cannot be disturbed for the mere reason of having based on materials or evidence not
sufficient or credible in the opinion of Writ Court to warrant those findings. At any rate, as
long as they are based upon some material which are relevant for the purpose, no interference
is called for. Even on the ground that there is yet another view which can reasonably and
possibly be taken the High Court can not interfere.

7. In case of Jasbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2006 ) 8 SCC 294, it was held that while
invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution, it is provided that the High Court would
exercise such powers most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate
courts within the bounds of their authority. The power of superintendence exercised over the
subordinate courts and tribunals does not imply that the High Court can intervene in the judicial
functions of the lower judiciary. The independence of the subordinate courts in the discharge of
their judicial functions is of paramount importance, just as the independence of the superior courts
in the discharge of their judicial functions.

8. Thus, it is apparent that the power under article 227 of the Constitution is to be exercised
sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of
2 All. Akash Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
449
their authority. This Power is not in the nature of power of appellate authority enabling reappreciation of evidence.

9. In the light of above well settled principles of law and after having considered the rival
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as upon careful perusal of the
record, this Court finds that both the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and Additional
Session Judge have passed reasoned and speaking orders, which reflect due application of judicial
mind.

10. A perusal of impugned order of the Court of Judicial Magistrate/ Civil Judge (JD)
F.T.C. -01 Aligarh dated 26.07.2022 reveals that trial Court considered the statement of
father of petitioners No.1 and 2 Geetam Singh, which was recorded in the report of D.P.O.
that marriage of Dharmendra was solemnized with opposite party No.2 without any dowry.
Opposite parties of Case No.408 of 2021 were proceeded ex-parte on the service report of
District Probation Officer, Aligarh as well as on the strength of delivery report that
summons were sent to opposite parties through registered post. Trial Court has discharged
the opposite party No.5, Jai Lalita from the said case, which is indicative of the fact that
trial Court has applied it's judicial mind on the facts and evidence available before it.
Thereafter the aforesaid ex-parte judgment dated 26.07.2022 was challenged by petitioners
as well as Dharmendra Kumar by way of filing an appeal, which was registered as Case
Crime No. 90 of 2024. The appellant Court in it's impugned judgment and order dated
02.12.2024, has specifically recorded that summons which were issued by Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Aligarh to opposite parties, were received by Geetam
Singh, who is the father of appellants and even in the report of District Probation Officer,
it is specifically mentioned that said Geetam Singh met on spot and his statement was also
recorded by District Probation Officer. It is in this background, the Appellate Court
recorded its finding that it cannot be said that appellants were not aware of the case in
question. It is important that original domestic violence complaint was filed against
Dharmendra Kumar, Geetam Singh, Shesh Kumar, Akash Kumar, Jai Lalita and Smt.
Vineeta. Trial Court discharged opposite party No.5 Jai Lalita. Thereafter appeal was filed
by Dharmendra Kumar, Shesh Kumar, Akash Kumar and Vineeta. Now present petition has
been filed by Akash Kumar, Shesh Kumar and Vineeta. At the stage of filing appeal, the
appellants left their father Geetam Singh. At the stage of present petition, even the husband
of opposite party No.2 i.e. Dharmendra Kumar has been intentionally left. It is not the case
of petitioners that father of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and father-in-law of petitioner No.3
namely Geetam Singh resides separately and they have no concern with him. On every
stage, an effort has been made just to defeat the finding of fact that notices of opposite
parties were received by said Geetam Singh.

11. In the aforesaid circumstances, no prima facie perversity or illegality is found in the
impugned judgment and order of Revisional Court, as well as in the impugned summoning order of
trial Court. Therefore, no ground for interference by this Court in exercise of it's writ jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out.

12. Accordingly, the writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
450 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 450
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 179 of 2026 & other connected cases

Arun Pratap Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Validity of the Government Order dated 14.11.2025 issued for deployment of teachers to maintain the
pupil-teacher ratio in basic educational institution.
(2) Scope of judicial review in the matter of transfer.
(3) Applicability of principle of natural justice in the matter of transfer.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Head master/Assistant Teacher - Redeployment - Government Order dated
14.11.2025 was issued to maintain the pupil-teacher ratio - Validity of GO dated 14.11.2025 was
challenged on the ground of its being discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution - GO dated 14.11.2025 was also attacked on the ground of its being tending to alter
the statutory provision - Permissibility :
Held : The obligation of the State to ensure uninterrupted education and compliance with the studentteacher ratio is a continuing one. If subsequent developments, such as change in enrolment, closure of
schools, or acute shortage of teachers, necessitate intervention, the State cannot be rendered powerless
merely on account of the passage of the month of July - The issuance of the Government Order in November
2025, therefore, cannot be said to be illegal or without jurisdiction, as it seeks to address pressing
administrative exigencies and to safeguard the larger interest of students - The Government Order dated
14.11.2025, issued for implementation of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009,
cannot be held to be arbitrary. [Para 88, 89 and 103]
Further held : The impugned Government Order neither amends nor overrides the statutory rules. On the
contrary, it supplements the Rules by facilitating their effective implementation. It is settled law that executive
instructions may validly fill in gaps where the rules are silent, provided they are not inconsistent with the
statutory framework. [Para 90]
(B) Service law - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ - Scope of judicial review -Transfer -
Interference, when not warranted :
Held : Transfer and adjustment of teachers is an incidence of service, and no employee can claim a vested
right to continue at a particular place of posting. In the absence of any pleading or proof of mala fides,
arbitrariness, or violation of statutory provisions, the Court finds no ground to interfere - The power to
transfer is ordinarily exercised in public interest and to meet administrative exigencies, and the courts, while
exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, do not sit in appeal over such decisions.
[Para 93 and 95]
(C) Service law - Constitution of India - Article 14 - Principle of natural justice - Transfer -
Doctrine of adopting fairness in administrative action - Applicability :
Held : Even in matters of transfer, though an incidence of service, an opportunity of representation ought to
be afforded where the action results in civil consequences or appears to operate arbitrarily. The doctrine of