# Ashok Kumar Singh & Anr v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 3 ILRA 1490
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-11-05
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42092 of 2011
- **Bench:** Suneet Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ashok-kumar-singh-anr-v-union-of-india-ors-43052
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Rules 2010-Part III Rule 10 (i)(d)-
Recruitment without advertisement in
two national daily news papers having
vide circular in locality-merely on basis
of
application
from
such
candidate
registered in employment exchangeheld-being violative of Art. 14 and 16 of
constitution
of
India-illegal-petition
allowed-with direction to fill up the
vacancy-after
following
mandatory
provision of Rule 10 from open marketadvertising two widely circulated new
paper one in vernacular and other in
regional language-on official website.
Held: Para-26
For the reasons stated hereinabove, the
vires of rule 10 and paragraph no. 1(d)
of part III of Regional Rural Banks
(Appointment and Promotion of Officers
and Employees) Rules 2010 is declared
intravires of the Constitution of India.
The mode of calling applications as
prescribed
under
rule
10
would
mandatorily include inviting candidates
from the open market by advertising in
two widely circulated newspapers (one
in vernacular language) over which the
Regional Rural Bank have to fill up the
vacancies
including
posting
the
advertisement on the official website.
Case
Law
discussed:
3 All].
 Ashok Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1491
(2011) 3 SCC 436; AIR 1998 SC 331; [(1996)
6 SCC 216]; (2003) 10 SCC 276; 2014 (2)
SCALE 262; AIR 1997 SC 1446; (2006) 2 SCC
482; (2006) 4 SCC 1; (2006) 10 SCC 261; AIR
1962 SC 602 (604); (1994) 3 UPLBEC 1551.

## Text

1490
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the
institution
w.e.f.
1.7.1996
to
30.6.2002, she must have been paid salary
against
the
said
post,
therefore,
considering the aforesaid fact and also the
fact that the petitioner actually did not
function on the said post during the
aforesaid period, it is not possible to grant
salary of the post of Principal to the
petitioner as claimed by her, however,
considering the fact that her statutory
right was violated on account of arbitrary
and
illegal
action
of
the
official
respondent no.1, Deputy Director of
Education, Agra Region, Agra, the
petitioner deserves to be compensated for
the
financial
loss
caused
to
her.
Considering the facts and circumstances
of the case an amount of Rs.2 lakh
payable by the State Government to the
petitioner shall be adequate compensation
to the petitioner. The aforesaid amount
shall be paid by the respondent State to
the petitioner within two months. In
addition to the above, it is provided that
the salary of the petitioner shall be fixed
treating her as officiating Principal of the
institution w.e.f. 1.7.1996 notionally and
based thereon, the post retirement benefits
like pension, etc. be revised and re-fixed,
if permissible under the rules, within a
period of six months from the date a
certified copy of this order is produced
before the concerned officer. The salary,
emoluments and post retirement benefits
already paid to the respondent no.5 and
consequential benefits based thereon,
shall
remain
unaffected
by
this
judgement.
23. In view of the aforesaid, the writ
petition is allowed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.11.2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42092 of 2011
Ashok Kumar Singh & Anr. Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Siddharth Khare
Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Sanjeev Singh, Sri P.K.
Singhal, S.C.
Regional Rural Bank (appointment &
promotion) of officer and employees
Rules 2010-Part III Rule 10 (i)(d)-
Recruitment without advertisement in
two national daily news papers having
vide circular in locality-merely on basis
of
application
from
such
candidate
registered in employment exchangeheld-being violative of Art. 14 and 16 of
constitution
of
India-illegal-petition
allowed-with direction to fill up the
vacancy-after
following
mandatory
provision of Rule 10 from open marketadvertising two widely circulated new
paper one in vernacular and other in
regional language-on official website.
Held: Para-26
For the reasons stated hereinabove, the
vires of rule 10 and paragraph no. 1(d)
of part III of Regional Rural Banks
(Appointment and Promotion of Officers
and Employees) Rules 2010 is declared
intravires of the Constitution of India.
The mode of calling applications as
prescribed
under
rule
10
would
mandatorily include inviting candidates
from the open market by advertising in
two widely circulated newspapers (one
in vernacular language) over which the
Regional Rural Bank have to fill up the
vacancies
including
posting
the
advertisement on the official website.
Case
Law
discussed:
3 All].
 Ashok Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1491
(2011) 3 SCC 436; AIR 1998 SC 331; [(1996)
6 SCC 216]; (2003) 10 SCC 276; 2014 (2)
SCALE 262; AIR 1997 SC 1446; (2006) 2 SCC
482; (2006) 4 SCC 1; (2006) 10 SCC 261; AIR
1962 SC 602 (604); (1994) 3 UPLBEC 1551.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Suneet Kumar, J.)
1. Prathama Bank Moradabad is a
regional rural bank governed by the
provisions of Regional Rural Bank Act
1976 (hereinafter referred to as the
'bank'). The petitioners belong to Other
Backward Class (O.B.C.) category, are
high school pass, the petitioners are not
enrolled in the Employment Exchange.
The respondent-bank to fill up Group 'C'
post
invited
names
of
candidates
registered
with
the
employment
exchanges.
Ministry
of
Finance
(Department of Financial Services) vide
notification dated 13.07.2010 provided
that post of Group 'C' shall be filled in the
bank after making reference to the
Employment Exchange, Sainik Board or
other agencies catering to the welfare of
scheduled
castes,
scheduled
tribes,
physically challenged persons or other
category of persons as recognized by the
Central
Government
or
the
State
Government having jurisdiction over the
Regional Rural Bank filling the posts.
2. Petitioners have approached the
Court seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) a writ, order or direction of a
suitable nature declaring Rule 10 and
paragraph no. 1(d) of part III of Regional
Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion
of Officers and Employees) Rules 2010 as
ultravires the Constitution of India as far
as it relates to the appointment in the
respondent bank.
(ii) a writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents to advertise the Group 'C'
posts in the daily news papers and only
then proceed to fill up the vacancies.
(iii) a writ, order or direction of a
suitable
nature
commanding
the
respondents to relax the upper age limit
from 28 to 30 years of General Category."
3. The contention of learned counsel
for the petitioners is, by inviting names
only from the Employment Exchange and
not
from
the
open
market
by
advertisement is violative of Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India, thus
rule 10 is ultravires of Article 16 as it
deprives other similarly situated persons
from applying for the post, thus, the
action of the bank in not advertising the
post is violative of the principles of the
equality in employment as enshrined
under Article 16.
4. In support of his submission,
learned counsel for the petitioners has
relied upon State of Orissa and another
Versus Mamata Mohanty1.
5. Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned
counsel for the respondent-bank, submits
that the bank is bound by the provisions
of Regional Rural Banks (Appointment
and
Promotion
of
Officers
and
Employees) Rule, 2010 notified by
Ministry of Finance (Department of
Financial Services) on 13.07.2010, under
Section 29 of the Regional Rural Bank
Act 1976 read with Section 17 thereof.
Rule 10 clearly provides Group 'C' post
shall be filled up by the bank after making
reference to the Employment Exchange,
thus the bank has not committed any
illegality or irregularity in filling up the
post from the candidates exclusively
sponsored by the Employment Exchange
and other Boards, further, there is no
1492
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
provision for inviting applications from
open market by advertising the vacancy.
6. Rival submissions fall for
consideration.
7. In Mamata Mohanty (supra) one
of the question before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court was, as to whether, a
person
can
be
appointed
without
following procedure known in law, as the
vacancy of the post was never advertised
nor was the name of the eligible
candidates
requisitioned
from
the
Employment
Exchange.
The
Court
referring to earlier judgments was of the
view that even if the names of candidates
are requisitioned from the Employment
Exchange, in addition thereto, it is
mandatory on the part of the employer to
invite applications from all the eligible
candidates from the open market by
advertising the vacancies in newspaper
having wide circulation. Para no. 35, 36
and 37 are as follows:
"35. At one time this Court had been
of the view that calling the names from
Employment Exchange would curb to
certain extent the menace of nepotism and
corruption in public employment. But,
later on, came to the conclusion that some
appropriate method consistent with the
requirements of Article 16 should be
followed. In other words there must be a
notice published in the appropriate
manner calling for applications and all
those who apply in response thereto
should be considered fairly. Even if the
names of candidates are requisitioned
from Employment Exchange, in addition
thereto it is mandatory on the part of the
employer to invite applications from all
eligible candidates from the open market
by
advertising
the
vacancies
in
newspapers having wide circulation or by
announcement in Radio and Television as
merely calling the names from the
Employment Exchange does not meet the
requirement of the said Article of the
Constitution. (Vide: Delhi Development
Horticulture Employees' Union v. Delhi
Administration, Delhi & Ors., AIR 1992
SC 789; State of Haryana & Ors. v. Piara
Singh & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 2130; Excise
Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna
District, A.P. v. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao
& Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 216; Arun Tewari
& Ors. v. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh &
Ors., AIR 1998 SC 331; Binod Kumar
Gupta & Ors. v. Ram Ashray Mahoto &
Ors., AIR 2005 SC 2103; National
Fertilizers Ltd. & Ors. v. Somvir Singh,
AIR 2006 SC 2319; Telecom District
Manager & Ors. v. Keshab Deb, (2008) 8
SCC 402; State of Bihar v. Upendra
Narayan Singh & Ors., (2009) 5 SCC 65;
and State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v.
Mohd. Ibrahim, (2009) 15 SCC 214).
36. Therefore, it is a settled legal
proposition that no person can be
appointed even on a temporary or ad hoc
basis without inviting applications from
all eligible candidates. If any appointment
is made by merely inviting names from
the Employment Exchange or putting a
note on the Notice Board etc. that will not
meet the requirement of Articles 14 and
16 of the Constitution. Such a course
violates the mandates of Articles 14 and
16 of the Constitution of India as it
deprives the candidates who are eligible
for the post, from being considered. A
person employed in violation of these
provisions is not entitled to any relief
including salary. For a valid and legal
appointment mandatory compliance of the
said Constitutional requirement is to be
fulfilled. The equality clause enshrined in
Article 16 requires that every such
3 All].
 Ashok Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1493
appointment be made by an open
advertisement as to enable all eligible
persons to compete on merit.
37. It is a settled legal proposition
that if an order is bad in its inception, it
does not get sanctified at a later stage. A
subsequent action/development cannot
validate an action which was not lawful at
its inception, for the reason that the
illegality strikes at the root of the order. It
would be beyond the competence of any
authority to validate such an order. It
would be ironic to permit a person to rely
upon a law, in violation of which he has
obtained the benefits. If an order at the
initial stage is bad in law, then all further
proceedings consequent thereto will be
non est and have to be necessarily set
aside. A right in law exists only and only
when it has a lawful origin. (vide: Upen
Chandra Gogoi v. State of Assam and
others, AIR 1998 SC 1289; Mangal
Prasad Tamoli v. Narvadeshwar Mishra,
AIR 2005 SC1964; and Ritesh Tiwari &
Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 2010
SC 3823)."
8.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent-bank has relied upon Arun
Tewari and others Versus Zila Mansavi
Shikshak Sangh and others2, wherein, the
Court had approved the provision of the
rule for inviting applications only from
the Employment Exchange. Paragraphs
no. 19 and 20 are as follows:
"19. The next contention relates to
inviting applications from Employment
Exchanges instead of by advertisement.
This procedure has been resorted to
looking to the requirement of a timebound scheme. The original applicants
contended that if the posts had been
advertised, many others like them could
have applied. The original applicants who
so complain, however, do not possess the
requisite qualifications for the post. As far
as we can see from the record, nobody
who had the requisite qualifications, has
complained that he was prevented from
applying because advertisement was not
issued. What is more important, in the
special circumstances requiring a speedier
process of selection and appointment,
applications
were
invited
through
employment exchanges for 1993 only. In
this
context,
the
special
procedure
adopted is not unfair. The State has relied
upon the case of Union of India & Ors.
Vs. N. Hargopal & Ors. (1987 [3] SCC
308),
where
Government
instruction
enjoining that the filed of choice should,
in the first instance, be restricted to
candidates sponsored the first instance, be
restricted to candidates sponsored by the
Employment Exchanges, was upheld as
not offending Article 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. In the case of Delhi
Development
Horticulture
Employees'
Union Vs. Delhi Administration, Delhi &
Ors. (1992 [4] SCC 99, at page 111). this
Court approved of recruitment through
employment Exchanges as a method of
preventing malpractices. But in the
subsequent and more recent case of
Excise
Superintended
Malkapatnam,
Krishna
District
A.P.
V.
K.B.N.
Visweshwara Rao & Ors.3 this Court has
distinguished Union of India V. Hargopal
(supra) on the basis of special facts of that
case. It was observed that the better
course for the State would be to invite
applications from employment exchanges
as well as to advertise and also give wide
publicity through TV, Radio etc. The
Court had to consider whether persons
who had applied directly and not through
employment
exchange
should
be
considered. The Court upheld their claim
for consideration.
1494
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
20.
There are different methods of
inviting applications. The method adopted in
the exigencies of the situation in the present
case not be labelled as unfair, particularly
when, at the relevant time, the two earlier
decisions of this Court were in vogue."
9. The issue as to whether for
employment in public services, whether
the department can restrict the candidates
sponsored
through
the
employment
exchange
for
selection,
was
also
considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam,
Krishna
District,
A.P.
v.
K.B.N.Visweshwara Rao and others4.
The said decision was rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India bearing
in mind the Employment Exchanges
(Compulsory Notification of Vacancies)
Act, 1959, particularly, Section 4(1) of
the said Act. In the said decision, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court (Three Judge
Bench), in Paragraph 6, held thus:-
"6. ..... Better view appears to be that
it
should
be
mandatory
for
the
requisitioning authority/establishment to
intimate the employment exchange, and
employment exchange should sponsor the
names
of
the
candidates
to
the
requisitioning departments for selection
strictly
according
to
seniority
and
reservation, as per requisition. In addition,
the appropriate department or undertaking
or establishment should call for the names
by publication in the newspapers having
wider circulation and also display on their
office notice boards or announce on radio,
television
and
employment
news
bulletins; and then consider the cases of
all the candidates who have applied. If
this procedure is adopted, fair play would
be subserved. The equality of opportunity
in the matter of employment would be
available to all eligible candidates."
10. Again the said issue came up for
consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the decision reported in Suresh
Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and
others5 in respect of recruitment of 1600
Police Constables in the State of Haryana.
In the said case, selection of candidates
made were not disturbed till the new
process was over as directed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and it was held
that no advertisement to the newspaper
nor employment exchange was intimated
for filling up of the vacancies and further
selection was ordered to be conducted by
issuing
re-advertisement
calling
for
application to fill up those vacancies.
11. It is also relevant, at this
juncture, to note that the Three Judge
Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
the decision reported in Renu and others
v. District & Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari
and another6, reiterated the above said
proposition of law and gave a direction to
all the High Courts to comply with the
purport of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India while filling up of
any vacant post either in the High Court
or in the Subordinate Courts throughout
India. In the said decision, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that post shall be
filled up by issuing the advertisement in
atleast two newspapers and one of which
must be in vernacular language having
wide circulation in the respective State,
apart from calling for a list from the local
employment exchange and any vacancy
filled
up
without
advertising
as
prescribed, shall be void ab-initio and
would
remain
unenforceable
and
inexecutable except the appointment on
3 All].
 Ashok Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1495
compassionate grounds, as per the Rules
applicable
12. Applying the law on the facts of
the case at hand, the Ministry of Finance
notified the 2010 Rules on 13.07.2010
under the 1976 Act. Rule 10 provides for
recruitment for the post of Group 'C'
which is as follows:
10. Recruitment to the posts of
Group 'C'.-
The posts of Group 'C' employee
shall be filled in by the Regional Rural
Bank after making a reference to the
Employment Exchange, Sainik Board or
other agencies catering to the welfare of
Scheduled
castes,
scheduled
tribes,
physically challenged persons or other
category of persons as are recognized by
the Central Government or the State
Government having jurisdiction over the
Regional Rural Bank filling the posts.
13. Part III of the Rule provides the
mode of appointment to Group 'C' post by
100%
direct
recruitment
and
the
minimum qualification is 10th standard
pass or equivalent. The selection is on the
basis of interview, the age prescribed is
18 years to 28 years providing relaxation
in case of candidates belonging S.C., S.T.
and Other Backward Class (O.B.C.)
category.
14. The contention of learned
counsel for the petitioners is that they
were not aware that the respondent-bank
is filling up the vacancies of Group 'C'
post as there was no advertisement, thus
depriving the petitioners their valuable
right as conferred under Article 16 of the
Constitution, respondent-bank has taken a
plea that they have strictly complied with
rule 10 of the Rules of 2010 by inviting
the names of eligible persons who were
registered
with
the
Employment
Exchange, further, the bank is going to fill
up 99 posts in the near future after
inviting
names
only
from
the
Employment Exchange.
15. The contention of learned
counsel for the respondent-bank cannot be
accepted as the bank has to comply with
the constitutional mandate enshrined
under
Article
14
and
16
of
the
Constitution which is mandatory in public
employment,
failing
which
such
appointments would be bad in law.
16. The submission on behalf of the
respondents that Rule/Order/Notifications
have been complied with is preposterous
for
the
simple
reason
that
such
Rule/Order/Notification being violative of
constitutional mandate is to be ignored in
terms of the judgment of the Supreme
Court rendered in Ram Ganesh Tripathi
and others Versus State of U.P. and
others7.
17. A bare perusal of rule 10, it is
evident that the rule requires that the post
shall be filled by the bank after making
reference to the Employment Exchange,
Sainik Board or other agencies, but the
rule nowhere states that the applications
of candidates cannot be entertained from
the open market, equal opportunity in
employment as enshrined under Article
16 which mandates wide publicity.
18. In order to uphold the vires of
rule 10, apart from making reference to
Employment Exchange, Sainik Board or
other agencies, bank will also have to
advertise the vacancies in two leading
widely circulated newspapers (one in
vernacular
language)/electronic
media
1496
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
inviting applications from open market
falling within the jurisdiction over the
Rural Regional Bank to fill the post.
19. The main object of Art. 16 of the
Constitution is to create a constitutional
right to equality of opportunity and
employment
in
public
offices. The
appointment to any post under the State
can only be made after making a proper
advertisement inviting applications from
eligible
candidates
and
holding
of
selection by a body of experts or a
specially constituted committee whose
members are fair and impartial through a
written examination or interview or some
other rational criteria for judging the
interse merit of candidates who applied in
response to the advertisement made8. An
appointment made in violation of Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India
would be void. It would be a nullity.9
20. The right guaranteed by Art.
16(1) includes-
(a) The right to make an application
for any post under the Government.10
(b) Art. 16(1) further guarantees a right to
be considered on the merits for the post
for which an application has been made;
but not the right to be appointed11,
21. Public employment is a facet of
right to equality envisaged under Art. 16
of the Constitution.
22.
This guarantee is violated where
the Government imposes an arbitrary ban
upon the appointment or re-appointment of a
particular individual, in the sense that even
though he applies for a post, his application
will not be considered on the merits, and as
such has no relation to his suitability for the
appointment to that post.12
23. The Employment Exchanges
(Compulsory Notification of Vacancies)
Act, 1959, provides for compulsory
notification of vacancies to employment
exchanges. Sub-clause (1) of Section 4 is
as follows:
"After the commencement of this Act
in any State or area thereof, the employer
in every establishment in public sector in
that State or area shall, before filling up
any vacancy in any employment in that
establishment notify that vacancy to such
Employment
Exchange
as
may
be
prescribed."
24. Section 7 provides for penalties,
if any employer fails to notify to the
Employment Exchange prescribed for the
purpose any vacancy in contravention of
sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of
section 4, he shall be punishable for the
first offence with fine which may extend
to five hundred rupees.
25. Full Bench judgment of this
Court in Radha Raizada and others versus
Committee of Management and others13,
held that the publication for any vacancy
on the notice board is no advertisement in
the eyes of law. For appointment against
substantive vacancy, advertisement of
vacancy in two newspaper is mandatory
and in absence of such advertisement the
appointment would be per se illegal.
26.

For
the
reasons
stated
hereinabove, the vires of rule 10 and
paragraph no. 1(d) of part III of Regional
Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion
of Officers and Employees) Rules 2010 is
declared intravires of the Constitution of
India. The mode of calling applications as
prescribed
under
rule
10
would
mandatorily include inviting candidates
3 All].
 Jai Prakash Maurya Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1497
from the open market by advertising in
two widely circulated newspapers (one in
vernacular language) over which the
Regional Rural Bank have to fill up the
vacancies
including
posting
the
advertisement on the official website.
27. In future vacancy, all Regional
Rural Banks shall invite applications for
posts as mentioned herein above.
28. Copy of the order shall be sent to
Ministry of Finance (Department of
Financial Services) New Delhi by the
Registry for information /circulation and
compliance.
29. Subject to the above, the writ
petition is allowed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.11.2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
Criminal Misc. Application No. 45679 of
2014
(U/s 482 CR.P.C.)
Jai Prakash Maurya
...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr.
...Opp. Parties
Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ashok Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
A.G.A.
Cr.P.C.-Section-482-Seeking direction for
consideration of bail application on same
day-reliance placed upon full Bench as
well as the judgment of Apex Court-held
direction issued by Apex Court binding
upon all Courts, under Article 145 of
Constitution-no further direction by High
Court required-otherwise would be great
travesty
of
justice-without
giving
privileges to the trail court to consider
the bail on merit-in absence of specific
pleadings about violation of Art. 21-no
such
direction
required-application
rejected.
Held: Para-25
The applicant has yet to surrender. He
has yet to move an application before
concerned court. Therefore, to issue a
direction for something which is yet to
see light of the day, is nothing but
requiring this Court to pass an order in
anticipation of certain facts which are
not pleaded or placed before this Court
by means of pleading in application
concerned. In other words the applicant
is seeking relief on imaginary basis.
Unless a case is made out for violation of
fundamental right under Article 21 of the
Constitution by specifically pleading all
relevant facts,
in my view, no such
direction would be justified to issue as it
amounts to issuing futile direction by
this Court and that too on superfluous
and
imaginary
basis.
The
aforesaid
decisions, therefore, as cited at the bar
in support of submission by learned
counsel for the applicant, do not help
him in any manner.
Case Law discussed:
Cr.L.J. 1981=1994 (4) SCC 260; 2009(4) SCC
437; 2005(1) AWC 416; 1997 (1) SCC 416; JT
1998 (2) SC 658; 2011 (1) SCC 694.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)
1. This application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. is filed with a prayer to set
aside
Non
Bailable
Warrant
dated
27.9.2014 issued against applicant in
Complaint Case No. 964 of 2014 now
Complaint Case No. 3257 of 2012. It has
been further prayed that a direction be
issued to court concerned to consider their
bail application of applicant on the same
day in Case Crime No. 230 of 2003 under