# Anugrah Narain Singh v. State of U.P - **Citation:** (2003) 1 ILRA 73 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2003-01-16 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 712 of 2003 - **Bench:** M. Katju, Prakash Krishna - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anugrah-narain-singh-v-state-of-u-p-40070 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Constitution of India, Article 226- Petitioner lease holder for 1998 to 2001 for excavate the sand- after the expiry of term petitioner can not claim to excavate the whole area of which the licence granted- only refund of the proportionate amount can be made. Held- Para 3 In our opinion when the period of a lease has expired the lessee cannot claim extension of the period of the lease on the ground that he was not permitted to operate the lease for the whole or part of the lease period vide Jata Shankar Pandey Vs. Collector, Writ Petition No. 13638 of 1993 decided on 5.10.1993 by a division bench of this Court. In these circumstances the petitioner can only file an application claiming for refund of the lease amount or proportionate lease amount, as the case may be. Case Law discussed: WP 13638/1993 decided on 5.10.1993 ## Text http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 1 All] Smt. Gangotri Devi Vs. The State Election Commission and others 73 consistent with the provisions of regulation 84 of the Service Regulation 1975 and this having not been done, the entire edifice constructed by the authorities falls to the ground. 8. The case framed against the petitioner bristles with many infirmities and one of the noticeable infirmities coming to the fore is that entire exercise resulting in the dismissal of the petitioner was conducted behind the back of the petitioner and without furnishing relevant documents or materials forming basis of the imputation of alleged misconduct resulting from submitting forged Transfer Certificate by the Petitioner and this arbitrary exercise leaves irremovable taint permeating the impugned order and thus, the impugned order is vitiated in law on the unvarnished and simple ground of violation of natural justice alone. It is anybody's guess that had the petitioner been supplied with the T.C. collected by the enquiry officer, he, in the facts and circumstances of the case, could have endeavored to shed sufficient light to indicate about the certificate collected by the enquiry officer. To sum up, all these rights including the right of reasonable opportunity to defend himself as envisaged in the statute have been denied to the petitioner and by this reckoning, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. The petitioner has also claimed opportunity to defend herself in reply. 9. As a result of foregoing discussion, the petition succeeds and is allowed. As a necessary consequence, the impugned order is hereby quashed attended with the observation that the disciplinary authority will embark upon departmental proceedings de novo as contemplated under rule 84 (1) (f) and (iv) (a) as well as 85 of the Service Regulations, 1975 and take the same to some conclusion after affording due opportunity of hearing in accordance with Rules within a period of three months which period will commence to run from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The consequential benefits shall abide by the final outcome of the enquiry. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.1.2003 BEFORE THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J. THE HON'BLE PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 712 of 2003 Smt. Gangotri Devi ...Petitioner Versus The State Election Commission and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.C. Misra Sri Vivek Mishra Counsel for the Respondents: Sri P.N. Rai Sri R.C. Dwivedi Sri O.P. Singh S.C. Constitution of India, Act 226 Election of Zila Parishad Adhyaksha- cannot be challenged in Writ Petition once the election started the only remedy remain to file election petition. Case Law discussed: 1996 (6) SCC. -303 2000 (8) SCC. -216 2001 (8) SCC. -509 http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 74 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003 (Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.) Heard the petitioner in person. Sri P.N. Rai has appeared for the respondent no.s 1 and 2. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the election for the post of Adyaksha, Zila Panchayat, Kushi Nagar. It is settled law that once election process has started this Court cannot interfere, and the remedy of the petitioner is to file an election petition after the election result has been declared vide Anugrah Narain Singh vs. State of U.P. 1996 (6) S.C.C. 303, Election Commission vs. Ashok Kumar 2000 (8) S.C.C.216, Shri Sant Sadguru Janardam Swami Sahkari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha vs State of Maharashtra 2001 (8) S.C. 509 etc. Under Rule 33 of the U.P. Zila Panchayat Election of Adyaksha and Upadyaksha and Settlement of Election Disputes Rules, 1994 the petitioner can file an election petition which, if filed, will be disposed off expeditiously in accordance with law. The petition is therefore dismissed. The interim order if any is vacated. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.01.2003 BEFORE THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J. THE HON'BLE PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 571 of 2003 Bhola Prasad Nishad ...Petitioner Versus District Magistrate, Deoria and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Ajay K. Misra Sri Ashwani K. Misra Counsel for the Respondents: S.C. Constitution of India, Article 226- Petitioner lease holder for 1998 to 2001 for excavate the sand- after the expiry of term petitioner can not claim to excavate the whole area of which the licence granted- only refund of the proportionate amount can be made. Held- Para 3 In our opinion when the period of a lease has expired the lessee cannot claim extension of the period of the lease on the ground that he was not permitted to operate the lease for the whole or part of the lease period vide Jata Shankar Pandey Vs. Collector, Writ Petition No. 13638 of 1993 decided on 5.10.1993 by a division bench of this Court. In these circumstances the petitioner can only file an application claiming for refund of the lease amount or proportionate lease amount, as the case may be. Case Law discussed: WP 13638/1993 decided on 5.10.1993 (Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner was granted a lease from 1998 to 2001. It is alleged in para 5 of the writ petition that the petitioner was not allowed to excavate the sand for the period of the lease. The petitioner made several representations to the District Magistrate, copies of which are Annexure 3 to the writ petition, but to no avail. The petitioner filed an appeal but that has been rejected stating that the appeal was not against any order vide Annexure 5 to the writ petition.