# Anugrah Narain Singh v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2003) 1 ILRA 74
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-01-08
- **Bench:** M. Katju, Prakash Krishna
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anugrah-narain-singh-v-state-of-u-p-40071
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India
Art
311(2)
reversion from higher post to his original
post-petitioner worked on higher post on
deputation No applicability of Art 311 (2)
re- version held valid
Held-para 4
In view of what has been stated above,
since the petitioner was admittedly on
deputation in Trade Tax Department and
no punishment has been awarded to the
petitioner,
the
petitioner
has
been
simply
repatriated
to
his
parent
department, the same order does not
cast stigma on the petitioner or is an
order of punitive in nature. Therefore,
the contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner, that the respondents who
are constitutionally mandate to comply
with the provisions of Article 311 (2) of
the
Constitution
of
India
which,
admittedly, has not been complied with
in the present case, is not applicable.
Therefore, the argument advanced on
behalf
of
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner deserves to be rejected and is
hereby rejected.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1971 SC 998

## Text

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.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Bhola Prasad Nishad Vs. D.M., Deoria and others
75
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.

4. However, if the petitioner makes
such an application the same will be
decided by the authority concerned
preferably within two months thereafter in
accordance with law.
The
writ
petition
is
disposed
off
accordingly.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD JANUARY 14TH, 2003.

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ petition no. 51124 of 2002

Mohar Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
Joint commissioner (SIB) and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri G.K. Singh
Sri V.K. Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
S.C.

Constitution
of
India
Art
311(2)
reversion from higher post to his original
post-petitioner worked on higher post on
deputation No applicability of Art 311 (2)
re- version held valid
Held-para 4
In view of what has been stated above,
since the petitioner was admittedly on
deputation in Trade Tax Department and
no punishment has been awarded to the
petitioner,
the
petitioner
has
been
simply
repatriated
to
his
parent
department, the same order does not
cast stigma on the petitioner or is an
order of punitive in nature. Therefore,
the contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner, that the respondents who
are constitutionally mandate to comply
with the provisions of Article 311 (2) of
the
Constitution
of
India
which,
admittedly, has not been complied with
in the present case, is not applicable.
Therefore, the argument advanced on
behalf
of
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner deserves to be rejected and is
hereby rejected.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1971 SC 998

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.)

1. By means of this writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner, Mohar Singh has
challenged
the
order
dated
22nd
November, 2002 passed by the respondent
no. 1, a copy whereof has been annexed
as annexure 5 to the writ petition,
whereby
the
petitioner
has
been
repatriated to his parent department from
Trade Tax Department where he was
working on deputation.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and perused the impugned order
dated 22nd November, 2002.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has stated that recital in the order that
after
consideration,
the
joint
commissioner, trade tax, Lucknow has
decided to repatriate the aforesaid two