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

- **Citation:** (2022) 10 ILRA 466
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-07-22
- **Case number:** Writ-B No. 1613 of 2022
- **Bench:** Dinesh Pathak
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/arun-kumar-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47749
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Civil Law - Limitation Act,1971 - Section 5
- Delay in filing restoration application -
adopting a liberal approach and deciding
the delay condonation application does
not give a jurisdiction to extend period of
limitation on the ground of equity - One
Sankata Prasad filed a revision before the
Board of Revenue, which was dismissed
by an order dated 30.9.1986 - After his
death, his sons (the present petitioners)
filed
a
restoration
application
dated
3.7.2019 - By impugned order the Board
of Revenue, Allahabad rejected the highly
time barred restoration application dated
3.7.2019 filed against the order dated
30.9.1986 - Held - the original affected
person (father of the petitioner), who was
alive at the relevant time & died in the
year 2018, never made any endeavour to
challenge the order and accepted the
order passed by the Board of Revenue and
the learned Commissioner - Board of
Revenue rightly rejected the restoration
application of the petitioners on the
ground of latches, which was filed without
assigning any reliable and cogent reason
for inordinate delay (8,9,10)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao Vs Reddy Sridevi
& ors. in Civil Appeal No. 7696 of 2021 dated
16.12.2021, 2021 SCC Online SC 1260

## Text

466 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
levelled and it is only after replies of the
petitioners are submitted that the authority
would take a decision whether to drop the show
cause notice or to pass an order with regard to
blacklisting.

38. It is legally well settled that mere
issuance of show cause notice does not amount
to an adverse order, which may be held to affect
the rights of the parties. The necessity for
issuing a show cause notice and the requirement
of specifying the grounds on which the action is
proposed is in fact a necessary prerequisite, so
as to ensure that the noticee is aware of the
grounds on which action is proposed and has an
adequate opportunity to rebut the same. If the
show cause notice does not specifically state the
grounds on which it is being issued and the
proposed action, the noticee would be taken by
surprise and would not have adequate
opportunity to rebut the allegations during the
course of inquiry which is to follow.

39. We are of the view that the challenge
to the show cause notices in the instant petitions
is premature for the reason that the mere
indication of the grounds and the penalty
proposed, would not give rise to a cause of
action, as it is open to the petitioners to present
their case and rebut the imputations, whereupon
it would be incumbent upon the respondent
authority to proceed with the inquiry and pass
an appropriate speaking and reasoned order
after giving adequate opportunity to the
petitioners and ensuring due compliance of the
principles of natural justice. The outcome of the
inquiry which is proposed in terms of the show
cause notice would only be a matter of
conjecture at this stage, inasmuch as it is
equally possible that after considering the
response of the petitioners and holding due
inquiry, the respondent authority may drop the
proceeding or may reject the reasons given by
the noticee. It is only upon conclusion of the
proceedings where any order is passed by the
respondent authority which is prejudicial to
their interest, the petitioners may have cause of
action to raise a challenge to the same.

40. Having regard to the aforestated facts
and circumstances, we are of the view that the
challenge raised to the show cause notices, at
this stage, is premature.

41. Accordingly, we are not inclined to
exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
interfere in the matter.

42. It would be open to the petitioners to
submit their response to the show cause notices
dated 18.6.2022, within a period of two weeks
from date whereupon the concerned respondent
authority would be expected to conclude the
proceedings within a further period of two
weeks, after affording proper opportunity of
hearing to the petitioners and according due
consideration to the defence set up by the
petitioners in the replies to the show cause
notices and pass reasoned and a speaking orders
thereupon.

43. The petitions stand disposed of
accordingly.
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 466
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.

Writ-B No. 1613 of 2022

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

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Pavan Kumar Srivastava
10 All. Arun Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
467
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Rajkishore Singh, Sri Vineet Kumar
Singh

Civil Law - Limitation Act,1971 - Section 5
- Delay in filing restoration application -
adopting a liberal approach and deciding
the delay condonation application does
not give a jurisdiction to extend period of
limitation on the ground of equity - One
Sankata Prasad filed a revision before the
Board of Revenue, which was dismissed
by an order dated 30.9.1986 - After his
death, his sons (the present petitioners)
filed
a
restoration
application
dated
3.7.2019 - By impugned order the Board
of Revenue, Allahabad rejected the highly
time barred restoration application dated
3.7.2019 filed against the order dated
30.9.1986 - Held - the original affected
person (father of the petitioner), who was
alive at the relevant time & died in the
year 2018, never made any endeavour to
challenge the order and accepted the
order passed by the Board of Revenue and
the learned Commissioner - Board of
Revenue rightly rejected the restoration
application of the petitioners on the
ground of latches, which was filed without
assigning any reliable and cogent reason
for inordinate delay (8,9,10)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao Vs Reddy Sridevi
& ors. in Civil Appeal No. 7696 of 2021 dated
16.12.2021, 2021 SCC Online SC 1260

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak, J.)

1. Heard Sri Pavan Kumar Srivastava,
learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri
Vineet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for
private-respondent
no.5
and
learned
Standing Counsel representing respondent
nos. 1 to 4.

2. By way of present writ petition, the
petitioners have invoked extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India challenging the
order
dated
23.9.1975
passed
by
Commissioner,
Allahabad
Division,
Allahabad and order dated 17.8.2021
passed by Board of Revenue, Allahabad
rejecting the highly time barred restoration
application dated 3.7.2019 filed against the
order dated 30.9.1986 passed in Revision
No. 106 of 1975-76/Fatehpur.

3. Facts culled out from the averment
made in the writ petition are that
proceeding has been initiated for realization
of the loan amount as land revenue. The
property of Sankata Prasad (father of
present petitioners) was sold in auction sale
dated 25.7.1974 in favour of Balbir
(respondent
no.5).
Feeling
aggrieved
against the said auction sale, Sankata
Prasad had filed objection under Section
281 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act read with Rules
285-I and 285-J of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules,
inter alia, on the grounds that the share of
Sankata Prasad is only 1/4 but auction had
illegally been taken place showing his half
share (1/2) in the property in question. The
objection filed by Sankata Prasad was
rejected by order dated 23.9.1975 passed
by Commissioner, Allahabad Division,
Allahabad on the basis of the report of
Lekhpal and other documents, showing the
ownership of the Sankata Prasad to the
extent of half share (1/2) in the property in
question, therefore, auction sale dated
25.7.1974 was held valid with respect to his
half share. Having been aggrieved against
the order dated 23.9.1975, Sankata Prasad
had preferred revision being Revision No.
106 of 1975-76/Fatehpur before the Board
of Revenue, which was also dismissed vide
order dated 30.9.1986. After the death of
Sankata Prasad, his sons (the present
petitioners) have filed highly belated
restoration application dated 3.7.2019,
468 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which was rejected being time barred vide
order dated 17.8.2021 passed by Board of
Revenue, which is under challenged in the
present writ petition.

4. It is submitted by counsel for the
petitioners that more than the valid share of
Sankata Prasad had been put to auction
sale, but the same has illegally been
ignored
by
the
court
below
and
unfortunately, restoration application, filed
on behalf of present petitioners was
rejected on the ground of latches. After the
death of Sankata Prasad on 4.11.2018,
while the contesting respondent has tried to
sell the property in question, petitioners
came to know about the entire facts. It is
further submitted that the petitioners could
not
know
the
previous
proceeding,
therefore, they could not file the restoration
application within time. Orders passed by
the Board of Revenue are illegal and
suffers from infirmity and irregularity,
therefore, these orders should be quashed
and one opportunity should be given to the
petitioners to defend their case.

5. Per contra, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent no.5
(auction purchasers) contended that the
orders dated 23.9.1975 and 30.9.1986 were
passed in the presence of Sankata Prasad
(father of the petitioners). It is evident from
the perusal of the aforesaid orders, which
are
annexed
as
annexure-3
and
5
respectively to the writ petition, that the
auction sale has already attained finality in
the year 1974 and after such a belated stage
there is no justification for challenging said
auction proceedings. It is further contended
that since 1974, respondent no.5 is in the
possession over the property in question
and all rights pertains to the subject matter
of auction sale, are vested with him. No
sufficient ground has been assigned by the
petitioners
in
filing
the
restoration
application
at
a
belated
stage. The
impugned orders passed by Board of
Revenue and Commissioner, Allahabad
Division,
Allahabad
requires
no
interference by this Court and the present
writ petition is liable to be dismissed with
cost.

6. Having considered the rival
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties and pleading on record, it is
a admitted position to both the parties that
auction
proceeding
took
place
for
realization of the loan amount, as a land
revenue, and the property of Sanakata
Prasad was put to auction sale on
25.7.1974. So far as the share of the
Sankata Prasad in the subject matter of
auction
proceeding
is
concerned,
Commissioner and the Board of Revenue,
vide their orders dated 23.9.1975 and
20.9.1986
respectively,
have
recorded
concurrent finding that the Sankata Prasad
was entitled for half share in the property in
question. Finding of facts given by them
was supported by the report of the
Collector and the Lekhpal. In the sale
proclamation half (1⁄2) share of Sankata
Prasad was stipulated. The Board of
Revenue has also emphasized one another
aspects of the matter that the other cosharers in the property in question did not
come forward against the auction sale
claiming their right and title over the
subject matter of auction sale, who may
have affected due to auction of property
more than the valid share of Sankata Prasad
as stated by him. There is nothing on record
to show that any other co-sharer of the
subject matter of the auction proceeding
came forward to contest the case claiming
his right/title over the property in question.
As per the case of the petitioners, their
father was alive from 30.9.1986 to
10 All. Arun Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
469
4.11.2018, but during these long period, he
had never made any endeavour to challenge
the order dated 30.9.1986 in his life time.
This Court note with utmost surprise how
affected person (Sankata Prasad) had
shown his ignorance when orders passed
against him came to this serious and
dangerous consequence prejudicing his
right and title over the property in question.
Prima facie, it appears that after the death
of Sankata Prasad (father of present
petitioners), dishonesty prevailed in their
mind and they deliberately moved a
restoration application dated 3.7.2019 at a
belated stage on very flimsy grounds.
Auction sale dated 25.7.1974 has already
attained finality and, at this juncture, there
is no justification to interfere in the
aforesaid auction proceeding, after such a
long time. No sufficient and justifiable
ground has been offered to explain such
inordinate delay in filing the restoration
application at the behest of the petitioners,
who are claiming their right/title over the
property in question being sons of Sanakata
Prasad. On the face of it restoration
application appears to be misconceived and
devoid of merits.

7. Perusal of the record reveals that there
is a gross negligence, recklessness and
deliberate inaction at the part of the petitioners
who have filed the restoration application at a
very belated stage, without sufficiently
explaining the inordinate delay, challenging
the order dated 30.9.1986 coupled with the
validity of the auction proceeding which took
place in the year 1974. The highly belated
restoration application is nothing but abuse of
process of law. It is a sham, illusory and
inspired by nefarious and vexatious designs
which should be throttled at the threshold.

8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao
Vs. Reddy Sridevi & Ors. in Civil Appeal
No. 7696 of 2021 decided on 16.12.2021,
reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 1260, has
expounded that adopting a liberal approach
and
deciding
the
delay
condonation
application does not give a jurisdiction to
extend period of limitation on the ground of
equity. The relevant paragraph 7, 7.1, 7.2,
7.3, 7.4 and 7.5 of the aforesaid judgment
is quoted hereinbelow:

"7. At this stage, a few decisions of
this Court on delay in filing the appeal are
referred to and considered as under:-

7.1 In the case of Ramlal, Motilal and
Chhotelal (supra), it is observed and held
as under:-

In construing s. 5 it is relevant to bear
in mind two important considerations. The
first consideration is that the expiration of
the period of limitation prescribed for
making an appeal gives rise to a right in
favour of the decree-holder to treat the
decree as binding between the parties. In
other words, when the period of limitation
prescribed has expired the decree-holder
has obtained a benefit under the law of
limitation to treat the decree as beyond
challenge, and this legal right which has
accrued to the decree-holder by lapse of
time
should
not
be
light-heartedly
disturbed. The other consideration which
cannot be ignored is that if sufficient cause
for excusing delay is shown discretion is
given to the Court to condone delay and
admit the appeal. This discretion has been
deliberately conferred on the Court in
order that judicial power and discretion in
that behalf should be exercised to advance
substantial justice. As has been observed by
the Madras High Court in Krishna v.
Chattappan, (1890) J.L.R. 13 Mad. 269,
"s. 5 gives the Court a discretion which in
respect of jurisdiction is to be exercised in
the way in which judicial power and
470 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
discretion ought to be exercised upon
principles which are well understood; the
words 'sufficient cause' receiving a liberal
construction so as to advance substantial
justice when no negligence nor inaction
nor want of bona fide is imputable to the
appellant."

7.2 In the case of P.K. Ramachandran
(supra), while refusing to condone the
delay of 565 days, it is observed that in the
absence of reasonable, satisfactory or even
appropriate
explanation
for
seeking
condonation of delay, the same is not to be
condoned lightly. It is further observed that
the law of limitation may harshly affect a
particular party but it has to be applied
with all its rigour when the statute so
prescribes and the courts have no power to
extend the period of limitation on equitable
grounds. It is further observed that while
exercising discretion for condoning the
delay, the court has to exercise discretion
judiciously.

7.3 In the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil
(supra), it is observed as under:-

"The laws of limitation are founded on
public policy. Statutes of limitation are
sometimes described as "statutes of peace".
An unlimited and perpetual threat of
limitation
creates
insecurity
and
uncertainty; some kind of limitation is
essential for public order. The principle is
based on the maxim "interest reipublicae ut
sit finis litium", that is, the interest of the
State requires that there should be end to
litigation but at the same time laws of
limitation are a means to ensure private
justice suppressing fraud and perjury,
quickening
diligence
and
preventing
oppression. The object for fixing time-limit
for litigation is based on public policy
fixing a lifespan for legal remedy for the
purpose of general welfare. They are meant
to see that the parties do not resort to
dilatory tactics but avail their legal
remedies
promptly.
Salmond
in
his
Jurisprudence states that the laws come to
the assistance of the vigilant and not of the
sleepy."

7.4 In the case of Basawaraj (supra), it
is observed and held by this Court that the
discretion to condone the delay has to be
exercised judiciously based on facts and
circumstances of each case. It is further
observed that the expression "sufficient
cause" cannot be liberally interpreted if
negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is
attributed to the party. It is further observed
that even though limitation may harshly
affect rights of a party but it has to be applied
with all its rigour when prescribed by statute.
It is further observed that in case a party has
acted with negligence, lack of bona fides or
there is inaction then there cannot be any
justified ground for condoning the delay even
by imposing conditions. It is observed that
each application for condonation of delay
has to be decided within the framework laid
down by this Court. It is further observed that
if courts start condoning delay where no
sufficient cause is made out by imposing
conditions then that would amount to
violation of statutory principles and showing
utter disregard to legislature.

7.5 In the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil
(supra), it is observed by this Court that the
court cannot enquire into belated and stale
claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats
equity. The Courts help those who are
vigilant and "do not slumber over their
rights"."

9. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the present case and
dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court, in the
conspectus as above, I am of the view that
petitioners have not come with clean hands
before this Court. A clear cut recklessness
and gross negligence is made out at their
part in adopting the legal recourse against
10 All. A.K. Ravi Nedungadi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
471
the orders dated 30.9.1986 and 23.9.1975.
Even, the original affected person, who was
alive at the relevant time and died in the
year 2018, had never made any endeavour
to challenge the said order and kept silent
accepting the order passed by the Board of
Revenue and the learned Commissioner.

10. Resultantly, for the reason stated
above, there is no force in the instant writ
petition. I do not find any substance in the
submissions advanced by counsel for the
petitioners assailing the impugned orders.
The Board of Revenue has rightly rejected
the restoration application of the petitioners
on the ground of latches, which was filed
without assigning any reliable and cogent
reason for inordinate delay.

11. As such, present writ petition,
being misconceived and devoid of merits,
is dismissed. No order as to costs.
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 471
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.10.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 72 of 2020

A.K. Ravi Nedungadi & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Baljeet Singh, Somya Chaturvedi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Govt. Advocate, Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, Sri
Kapil Misra, Sri Neelesh Anand

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-
Section
482
-
Inherent power - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Section 406 420, 467, 468, 471
and 120-B - The Companies Act, 2013 -
Section 149/150 - Vicarious criminal
liability of its Directors and Shareholders
would
arise
provided
any
provision
exists in that behalf in the statute -
Individual
who
has
perpetrated
commission of offence on behalf of the
Company can be made an accused along
with the Company, if there is sufficient
evidence of his active role coupled with
criminal intent - person working in a
Company also can be made an accused
and
implicated
if
there
is
specific
role/allegation which attracts doctrine
of vicarious liability - In absence of any
of two aforesaid situations - when the
Company is offender, vicarious liability
of the Directors cannot be imputed
automatically. (Para -33,36)

(B) Criminal Law - vicarious criminal
liability - If the petitioners have not
been
involved
in
the
alleged
transactions
at
any
point
of
time,
vicarious criminal liability cannot be
fixed upon the petitioners - summoning
of an accused in a criminal case is a
serious matter - Criminal law cannot be
set in motion as the matter of course for
alleged offences. (Para -35)

Petitioners being non-executive directors - not
involved in operations - relating to production
and supply/delivery of goods of the company
or in day-to-day business of the company -
neither disclosed in FIR nor in Charge sheet -
Summoned - Supplementary charge sheet -
question - whether petitioners are personally
liable for any offence even if the allegations in
the FIR and charge-sheet are taken on their
face value to be correct in entirety. (Para -
33)

HELD:-Petitioners who are/were part time
Directors
of
Company
cannot
be
held
responsible for alleged offence committed on
behalf of Company. Nothing on record
suggest that they were responsible in any
manner for receiving the order for supply of
beer or alleged evasion of excise duty.
Continuance
of
proceedings
against
petitioners wholly unjustified and uncalled for.