# Amritansh Pandey v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 9 ILRA 281
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-02
- **Case number:** Writ B No. 2620 of 2023
- **Bench:** Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/amritansh-pandey-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50767
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

C.S.C., Sri Arvind Kumar Shukla, Sri Sudhir
Bharti, Sri R.C. Singh (Sr. Advocate)

Held:
The writ petition challenging orders dated
30.06.2023, 12.04.2021, and 07.02.2020 passed
by the Board of Revenue, Sub-Divisional Officer,
and Nayab Tehsildar, respectively, in mutation
proceedings under Section 35 of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006, is not maintainable.
Mutation proceedings are summary in nature
and do not confer or extinguish title. Entries in
revenue records are for fiscal purposes only and
have no presumptive value on title. The
petitioner's claim based on a registered Will
dated 24.06.2010 requires adjudication by a
competent civil court to establish title. The writ
petition is disposed of with liberty to the
petitioner to approach the competent civil court
for adjudication of rights/title, and the mutation
orders shall abide by such decision without
being influenced by findings in the mutation
proceedings.

Case Law Discussed:

## Text

9 All. Amritansh Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
281

32. It is also made clear that while
passing any order the State or the
concerned Authority will take note of
judgments passed by Supreme Court in
Hinchlal Tiwari (supra) and Jagpal
Singh (supra) and other judgments and
provisions referred in present judgment.
The observations and order of status quo
for three months shall not be construed that
this Court has directed to undertake any
fresh exercise of allotment and if the State
or Authority concerned does not initiate
fresh proceedings for allotment within
aforesaid period, the legal consequence of
impugned order shall follow and Authority
shall
take
necessary
steps
for
its
implementation,
expeditiously
within
shortest time.

33. All writ petitions are disposed of.

34. No order as to costs.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 281
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

Writ B No. 2620 of 2023

Amritansh Pandey ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sudhanshu Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Arvind Kumar Shukla, Sri Sudhir
Bharti, Sri R.C. Singh (Sr. Advocate)

Held:
The writ petition challenging orders dated
30.06.2023, 12.04.2021, and 07.02.2020 passed
by the Board of Revenue, Sub-Divisional Officer,
and Nayab Tehsildar, respectively, in mutation
proceedings under Section 35 of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006, is not maintainable.
Mutation proceedings are summary in nature
and do not confer or extinguish title. Entries in
revenue records are for fiscal purposes only and
have no presumptive value on title. The
petitioner's claim based on a registered Will
dated 24.06.2010 requires adjudication by a
competent civil court to establish title. The writ
petition is disposed of with liberty to the
petitioner to approach the competent civil court
for adjudication of rights/title, and the mutation
orders shall abide by such decision without
being influenced by findings in the mutation
proceedings.

Case Law Discussed:

1. Madhav Pandey Vs Board of Revenue,
2002(2) AWC 1311

2. Smt. Kalawati Vs Board of Revenue, 2022(4)
ADJ 578

3. Hadisul Nisha Vs Additional Commissioner
(Judicial) Faizabad, 2021(6) ADJ 176

4. Jitendra Singh Vs St. of M.P., 2021(6)
Supreme 185

5. Faqruddin Vs Tajuddin, (2008) 8 SCC 12

6. Suraj Bhan Vs Financial Commissioner,
(2007) 6 SCC 186

7. Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar (D) through
L.R. Vs Arthur Import and Export Comp.,
MANU/SC/0112/2019

8. M/s. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs Excise and
Taxation Officer, AIR 2023 SC 781

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

1. Heard Shri Sudhanshu Pandey,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri
282 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sudhir
Bharti,
learned
counsel
for
respondent No. 5, Shri Pankaj Kumar,
learned Standing Counsel for respondents
No. 1 to 4 and Shri R.C. Singh, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Arvind
Kumar
Shukla,
learned
counsel
for
respondent No. 6.

2. The present writ petition has been
filed seeking the following reliefs:

"A. Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the impugned orders dated
30.06.2023 passed by the Board of Revenue
U.P. at Lucknow in Revision No. 1063 of
2021, Order dated 12.04.2021 passed by
Sub-Divisional
Officer,
Tahsil
Kasya
District Kushinagar in Case No. 00006 of
2021 and order dated 07.02.2020 passed b
the Nayab Tehsildar Padrauna District
Kushinagar
in
Case
No.
3772
of
2017(Amritansh Pandey vs. Upendra Mani)
under section 35 of U.P. Revenue Code
2006.

B. Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of Mandamus commanding
the Respondent No. 4, Nayab Tehsildar
Padrauna
Distrct
Kushinagar
to
mutate/record the name of the petitioner on
the basis of a registered Will dated
24.06.2010 in place of Sri Upendra Mani.

C. Issue any writ, order or
direction which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the present
circumstances of the case,

D. Award
the
cost
of
the
petition."

3. The factual matrix of the case in
brief is that one Shri Upendra Mani
executed a Will deed dated 24.06.2010
which was registered on 23.07.2010 in
favour of the Petitioner.

4. After the death of the aforesaid
testator on 11.07.2017, the petitioner filed a
mutation application dated 13/18.07.2017,
which
was
registered
as
Case
No.
3772/2017 under section 35 of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006. It is contended by the
petitioner that while the aforesaid mutation
proceeding was pending, the name of
respondent No. 6, on the basis of
succession, was recorded/mutated in the
revenue records of the property vide order
dated 17.08.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner
filed a recall application before the Nayab
Tehsildar, who vide order dated 30.12.2019
stayed
the
aforesaid
Order
dated
17.08.2017.

5. In the aforesaid case of mutation,
being Case No. 3772/2017, respondent
No. 6 filed objections and raised serious
objections against the genuineness of the
above mentioned registered Will. The
Nayab
Tehsildar,
Padrauna,
District
Kushinagar vide order dated 07.02.2020,
found the aforesaid Will deed to be
unacceptable and thereby affirmed the
earlier order dated 17.08.2017 in favour
of respondent No. 6.

6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order
dated 07.02.2020 passed by the Nayab
Tehsildar-respondent
No.
4,
the
petitioner filed an appeal before the SubDivisional
Officer,
Kasya
District,
Kushinagar-respondent No.3, who by a
detailed order 12.04.2021 dismissed the
said Appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner
preferred
a
Revision
bearing
REV/1063/2021/
Kushinagar
under
Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006 before the Board of Revenue, U.P.
The Board of Revenue dismissed the
said Revision by passing a detailed order
dated 30.06.2023.
9 All. Amritansh Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
283

7. Being aggrieved by the orders
dated 30.6.2023, 12.4.2021 and 7.2.2020,
the petitioner has preferred the present writ
petition
invoking
the
extra-ordinary
jurisdiction of the Writ Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.

8. The main ground raised by the
petitioner in the present writ petition is that
the revenue authorities have exceeded their
jurisdiction by disbelieving the genuineness
of the registered Will deed. The contention
of the learned counsel for the petitioner is
that when the competent court has not
cancelled the Will, the revenue authorities
ought to have believed in the genuineness
of the Will deed.

9. To establish the genuineness of the
aforesaid Will deed, the learned counsel for
the petitioner drew the attention of this
Court to the copy of the plaint bearing Case
No. 435/2011 as contained in Annexure
No.2 to the writ petition, said to have been
jointly filed by one, Upendra Nath and Smt.
Geeta Devi against the son of respondent
No. 6 and some other relatives, seeking the
relief of permanent prohibitory injunction.
In paragraphs No. 7 and 8 of the aforesaid
plaint there is a mention of the aforesaid
Will dated 24.10.2010. The learned counsel
for the petitioner has vehemently argued
that the said suit for permanent prohibitory
injunction is still pending wherein the
testator of the Will, namely, Shri Upendra
Mani, himself has stated that he executed
the said Will, and as such, the genuineness
of the Will cannot be doubted. He further
submits that the wishes of the testator
should be given weightage over other
parameters.

10. Per contra, the Shri R.C. Singh,
learned Senior Advocate appearing on
behalf of Respondent No. 6 contended that
mere filing of a suit, that too, for the relief
of permanent prohibitory injunction against
his
relatives
does
not
establish
the
genuineness of the Will in question. He
further submitted that on the face of it, the
said suit appears to be a collusive suit filed
at the instance of the mother of the
petitioner, namely, Smt. Geeta Devi, who is
the Plaintiff No. 2 in the said suit and has
verified the contents of the plaint as is
evident
from
the
verification
clause
mentioned at the bottom of the plaint.

11. Shri Pankaj Kumar, learned
Standing Counsel appearing for State-
Respondents No. 1 to 4 has raised an
objection regarding the maintainability of
the writ petition. He submits that the
proceedings arising out of mutation are
summary in nature and the writ petition
against the same is not maintainable under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
since the orders under challenge in the
instant writ petition, have arisen out of
proceedings under Section 35 of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006, which are admittedly
summary proceeding.

12. In the case of Madhav Pandey
and others versus Board of Revenue and
others, reported in 2002(2) AWC 1311;
this Court has held that the mutation
proceeding is summary in nature and writ
petition against the summary proceedings is
not entertainable under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. In paragraph No. 26
of the said judgement, it has been
categorically held as under:-

"26. The last submission of the
counsel for the Petitioner is that the
revenue court cannot interfere with the
finding of fact and the revisional court i.e.,
the Board of Revenue has wrongly
exercised the jurisdiction , hence this court
284 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
may set aside the order of the board of
revenue. As noticed above, there is
difference between lack of jurisdiction and
erroneous exercise of jurisdiction in a case.
The present proceedings arising out of the
mutation proceedings which is summary
proceeding and the writ petitions against
the
summary
proceedings
are
not
entertained
under
Article
226
of
Constitution of India. There is no need to
consider the question as to whether the
revisional court has committed any error in
exercise of jurisdiction. Assuming for
argument sake that there is some error in
exercise of jurisdiction by the Board of
Revenue, the said error will not make the
order without jurisdiction. As held above,
the writ petition arising out of the summary
proceedings, can be entertained only when
there is lack of jurisdiction. It being not a
case of lack of jurisdiction, no interference
is called for in the impugned order on the
basis of the above submission of the
counsel for the petitioners."

13. This Court in the case of Smt.
Kalawati vs. The Board Of Revenue And 6
Others reported in 2022 (4) ADJ 578 has
carved out certain exceptions under which
this Court in exercise of its power under
Article 226 of the Constitution may
entertain a writ petition against the orders
passed in mutation proceedings. For a
ready reference paragraph No. 40 of the
said judgment is reproduced below:-

"40.
Having
regard
to
the
foregoing discussion the exceptions under
which a writ petition may be entertained
against
orders
passed
in
mutation
proceedings would arise where :

(i) the order or proceedings are
wholly without jurisdiction;

(ii) rights and title of the parties
have already been decided by a competent
court, and that has been varied in mutation
proceedings;

(iii) mutation has been directed
not on the basis of possession or on the
basis of some title deed, but after entering
into questions relating to entitlement to
succeed the property, touching the merits of
the rival claims;

(iv) rights have been created
which are against provisions of any statute,
or the entry itself confers a title by virtue of
some statutory provision;

(v) the orders have been obtained
on the basis of fraud or misrepresentation
of facts, or by fabricating documents;

(vi) the order suffers from some
patent jurisdictional error i.e. in cases
where there is a lack of jurisdiction, excess
of jurisdiction or abuse of jurisdiction;

(vii) there has been a violation of
principles of natural justice."

14. Almost the similar situation has
been dealt with by this Court in the case of
Hadisul
Nisha
vs.
Additional
Commissioner (Judicial) Faizabad and
others reported in 2021 (6) ADJ 176,
wherein the Court has laid down the
exceptions, per which a writ petition would
be maintainable even against the orders
passed in summary proceedings despite the
said order having been affirmed/set aside
by the appellate or revisional court. For the
sake of convenience, paragraph No. 19 of
the same is indicated below:-

"19. The Courts in the aforecited
decisions have laid down a few parametres
for entertaining writs arising out of
mutation proceedings. The exceptions that
have been carved out being very few, for
example:-

i)
If
the
order
is
without
jurisdiction;
9 All. Amritansh Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
285

ii) If the rights and title of the
parties have already been decided by the
competent court, and that has been varied
by the mutation courts;

iii) If the mutation has been
directed not on the basis of possession or
simply on the basis of some title deed, but
after entering into a debate of entitlement
to succeed the property, touching into the
merits of the rival claims;

iv) If rights have been created
which are against statutory provisions of
any Statute, and the entry itself confers a
title on the petitioner by virtue of the
provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act;

v) Where the orders impugned in
the writ petition have been passed on the
basis of fraud or misrepresentation of facts,
or by fabricating the documents by anyone
of the litigants.

vi) Where the courts have not
considered the matter on merits for
example the courts have passed orders on
restoration applications etc (Vijay Shankar
v Addl Commissioner; 2015 (33) LCD
1073)"

15. In the case of Jitendra Singh
versus The State of Madhya Pradesh and
Ors. reported in 2021 (6) Supreme 185,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has
been pleased to hold as under,

"5.... Be that as it may, as per the
settled proposition of law, mutation entry
does not confer any right, title or interest in
favour of the person and the mutation entry
in the revenue record is only for the fiscal
purpose. As per the settled proposition of
law, if there is any dispute with respect to
the title and more particularly when the
mutation entry is sought to be made on the
basis of the will, the party who is claiming
title/right on the basis of the will has to
approach the appropriate civil court/court
and get his rights crystalised and only
thereafter on the basis of the decision
before the civil court necessary mutation
entry can be made."

16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Faqruddin v. Tajuddin reported in
(2008) 8 SCC 12 has held that the revenue
authorities of the State are concerned with
revenue. Mutation takes place only for
certain purposes. It is well settled that an
entry in revenue record is not a document
of title. Revenue authorities cannot decide
the question of title.

17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case
of
Suraj
Bhan
v.
Financial
Commissioner, reported in (2007) 6 SCC
186, has been pleased to hold that an entry
in Revenue Records does not confer title on
a person whose name appears in Record of
Rights. It is the settled law that entries in
the Revenue Records or Jamabandi have
only 'fiscal purpose' i.e. payment of landrevenue, and no ownership is conferred on
the basis of such entries. So far as the title
to the property is concerned, it can only be
decided by a competent Civil Court.

18. In the case of Bhimabai Mahadeo
Kambekar (D) through L.R. Vs. Arthur
Import and Export Company & Ors.
MANU/SC/0112/2019,
decided
on
31.01.2019, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
been pleased to hold that mutation in
revenue records does not create or
extinguish the title over the land nor it has
any presumptive value on the title.
Relevant paragraph Nos. 8 and 9 are
extracted here as under:-

"8. This Court has consistently
held that mutation of a land in the revenue
records does not create or extinguish the
286 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
title over such land nor it has any
presumptive value on the title. It only
enables the person in whose favour
mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue
in question. (See Sawarni (Smt.) vs. Inder
Kaur, (1996) 6 SCC 223, Balwant Singh &
Anr. Vs. Daulat Singh(dead) by L.Rs. &
Ors., (1997) 7 SCC 137 and Narasamma &
Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2009)
5 SCC 591).

9.
The
High
Court
while
dismissing the writ petition placed reliance
on the aforementioned law laid down by
this Court and we find no good ground to
differ
with
the
reasoning
and
the
conclusion arrived at by the High Court. It
is
just
and
proper
calling
for
no
interference."

In view of the above, as the
proceedings under Section 41 of the U.P.
Land Revenue Act, which is para materia to
Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006,
are summary in nature and once the parties
had availed the statutory remedy of
appeal/revision
before
the
revenue
authorities, no writ petition lies before this
Court as the entries in revenue records do
not confer any title and it is only the
competent court to declare the rights of the
aggrieved party in a regular suit filed for
declaration.

Thus, no interference can be
made by this Court in the order passed by
the
revenue
authorities
in
summary
proceedings and writ petition is dismissed,
accordingly. However, it is open for the
petitioners to file declaratory suit claiming
their right over the land in dispute."

19. It is settled law that the revenue
records do not confer title and even if the
entries in the revenue record of rights carry
value that by itself would not confer any
title upon the person claiming on the basis
of the same. The mutation proceedings
being of a summary nature drawn on the
basis of possession do not decide any
question of title and the orders passed in
such proceedings do not come in the way
of a person in getting his rights adjudicated
in a regular suit. Mutation in revenue
records neither creates nor extinguishes
title of the person nor it has any
presumptive value on title. Such entries are
relevant only for the purpose of collecting
land revenue. In view thereof, this Court
has consistently held that such writ
petitions are not to be entertained in
exercise of discretionary power conferred
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.

20. It would not be out of place to
mention here that the power to issue
prerogative writs under Article 226 is
plenary in nature. It does not, in terms,
impose any limitation or restraint on the
exercise of the power to issue writs. It is
the discretion of the Writ Court whether to
entertain writ petition or not depending
upon the facts and circumstances of each
particular case. One of the self imposed
restrictions on the exercise of the power
under Article 226 of the Constitution that
has evolved through judicial precedents is
that the High Court should normally not
entertain a writ petition, where an effective
and efficacious alternative remedy is
available. At the same time, it must be
remembered that mere availability of an
alternative remedy of appeal or revision,
which the party invoking the jurisdiction of
the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution has not pursued would not
oust the jurisdiction of the High Court and
render a writ petition 'not maintainable'.

21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of M/s. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. versus
Excise
and
Taxation
Officer-cum-
9 All. Amritansh Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
287
Assessing Authority and others; reported
in AIR 2023 Supreme Court 781, has
been pleased to explain the distinction
between
the
'entertainability'
and
'maintainability' of a writ petition. The
extract from paragraph 4 of the said
judgment is quoted below:

"......Though elementary, it needs
to be restated that "entertainability" and
"maintainability" of a writ petition are
distinct concepts. The fine but real
distinction between the two ought not to be
lost
sight
of.
The
objection
as
to
"maintainability" goes to the root of the
matter and if such objection were found to
be of substance, the courts would be
rendered incapable of even receiving the lis
for adjudication. On the other hand, the
question of "entertainability" is entirely
within the realm of discretion of the high
courts, writ remedy being discretionary. A
writ petition despite being maintainable
may not be entertained by a high court for
very many reasons or relief could even be
refused to the petitioner, despite setting up
a sound legal point, if grant of the claimed
relief
would
not
further
public
interest..........."

22. The reluctance of this Court to
interfere with the orders under challenge in
the instant petition, is primarily that the
same are the outcome of the mutation
proceedings and it is a settled legal position
that entry in the revenue records does not
confer title to a person whose name appears
in
the
records-of-rights,
which
is
maintained for revenue purpose and an
entry therein has reference only to
possession. Further, the provision of
Section 39 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
makes it more clear that orders passed
under the provisions relating to mutation of
revenue records would not act as a bar
against any person from establishing his
rights in the property by way of suit for
declaration.
For
ready
reference
the
provision of Section 39 of the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 is quoted below:-

"39-Certain orders of revenue
officers not to debar a suit. -No order
passed by a Revenue Inspector under
section 33, or by a Tahsildar under subsection (1) of section 35 or by a SubDivisional Officer under sub-section (3) of
section 38 or by a Commissioner under
sub-section (4) of section 38 shall debar
any person from establishing his rights to
the land by means of a suit under section
144."

23. Normally, the High Court in
exercise of its plenary power does not
entertain writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, against the orders
passed by the Revenue Courts in mutation
proceedings, except under the conditions as
formulated by this Court in cases as
mentioned above.

24. The fact of the present case does
not attract the above mentioned exceptions
as carved out by this Court under which
this Court in exercise of its power under
Article 226 of the Constitution may
entertain a writ petition against the order
passed in mutation proceedings that are
admittedly summary in nature.

25. It is well settled that the orders for
mutation are passed on the basis of the
possession of the parties and since no
substantive rights of the parties are decided
in mutation proceedings, ordinarily the
Writ Courts decline to entertain the writ
petition as not entertainable in respect of
orders passed in mutation proceedings,
unless
found
to
be
totally
without
288 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
jurisdiction or contrary to the title already
decided by the competent court.

26. In view of the above, as no
substantive rights of the parties have been
decided or are likely to be decided in the
mutation proceedings, no case for exercise
of extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
made out. Needless to say, it is always open
to the petitioner to get his rights/title in
respect of the land in question be
crystallised by competent Civil Court.

27. Accordingly, without interfering
with the merits of the impugned orders
passed by the Revenue Courts, this writ
petition is disposed of with liberty to the
parties to get their rights/title in respect of
the
land
in
question,
if
necessary,
adjudicated or declared by the competent
court of jurisdiction. The order passed in
the mutation proceedings would abide by
the decision of the competent court, if any,
and the said court would not, in any
manner, be influenced by any finding or
observation made in the mutation orders or
during mutation proceedings.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 288
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.09.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

Writ C No. 4953 of 2023
with other connected cases

Committee of Management Jai Prakash
Charitable Trust ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rajat Rajan Singh, Vidhu Bhushan Kalia

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Ravi Singh

Held -

(i) Pharmacy Act, 1948 - Special Central
Legislation - Regulation of Pharmacy
Education - PCI is the sole authority for
approval of institutions and courses -
State Government or Technical Board has
no jurisdiction to cancel NOC once granted
- Any deficiencies, if found, should be
referred to PCI.

(ii)
Principles
of
Natural
Justice
-
Cancellation of NOC without issuance of
show cause notice or opportunity of
hearing - Order passed by Board under
direction of St. Government
- Held,
violative of natural justice - Impugned
cancellation letter liable to be quashed.
(iii) Constitution of India, 1950 - Article
226 - Writ Petition against cancellation of
NOC for D. Pharma Course - PCI being the
expert
statutory
body
under
Central
legislation - Directions issued for Board
and St. to proceed in accordance with law
and PCI regulations.

Petitions allowed.

Case Law Discussed:

1. St. of T.N. Vs Adhiyaman Educational and
Research Institute, (1995) 4 SCC 104

2. St. of Mah. Vs Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan
Shastra Mahavidyalaya, (2006) 9 SCC 1

3. Bhartia Education Society Vs St. of H.P.,
(2011) 4 SCC 527

4. St. Johns Teachers Training Institute Vs
NCTE, (2003) 3 SCC 321

5. St. of Mah. Vs Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan
Shastra Mahavidyalaya, (2013) 2 SCC 617

6. Umanath Pandey Vs St. of U.P., (2009) 12
SCC 40