# Basoo Yadav v. Union of India & Ors. 278 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 277
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-12-16
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 29605 of 2022
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma, Ajit Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/basoo-yadav-v-union-of-india-ors-278-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-49142
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

(A) Civil law - Issuance of passport - The
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
Section 155(1) - Information as to noncognizable cases and investigation of such
cases , Section 468 - Bar to taking
cognizance after lapse of the period of
limitation , The Passports Act, 1967 -
Section 6 - Refusal of passports, travel
documents. etc. , Section 22 - Power to
exempt.

Online application form for issuance of passport
- rejected on basis of two reports of noncognizable cases - view of Director General of
Police - reports with regard to the noncognizable cases could not be made the basis
for rejecting an application for issuance of
passport if they had not been investigated into -
no appeal provided against order of rejection -
hence petition.(Para - 1, 2, 3, 14)

HELD:-No non-cognizable report which was
registered could be taken into cognizance if no
investigation was ordered by the concerned
Magistrate. Even during the pendency of any
criminal case, passport could be issued/renewed
as per the Government Order dated 25.8.1993 if
the Court passes orders for that purpose.
Direction issued .(Para - 14)

Petition Allowed. (E-7)

## Text

1 All. Basoo Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors.
277
'Continuous Service' as contained in Section
25-B of the Act. In terms of sub-Section (2) of
Section 25-B that if a workman during a period
of twelve calendar months preceding the date
with reference to which calculation is to be
made, has actually worked under the employer
240 days within a period of one year, he will be
deemed to be in continuous service. By reason
of the said provision, thus, a legal fiction is
created. The retrenchment of the respondent
took place on 17.5.1995. For the purpose of
calculating as to whether he had worked for a
period of 240 days within one year or not, it
was, therefore, necessary for the Tribunal to
arrive at a finding of fact that during the period
between 5.8.1994 to 16.5.1995 he had worked
for a period of more than 240 days. As noticed
hereinbefore, the burden of proof was on the
workman. From the Award it does not appear
that the workman adduced any evidence
whatsoever in support of his contention that he
complied with the requirements of Section 25-B
of the Industrial Disputes Act. Apart from
examining himself in support of his contention
he did not produce or call for any document
from the office of the Appellant herein including
the muster rolls. It is improbable that a person
working in a Local Authority would not be in
possession of any documentary evidence to
support his claim before the Tribunal. Apart
from muster rolls he could have shown the
terms and conditions of his offer of appointment
and the remuneration received by him for
working during the aforementioned period. He
even did not examine any other witness in
support of his case."

27. From a perusal of the judgement of
Siri Niwas (supra) it emerges that Hon'ble the
Apex Court while considering the definition of
the words "continuous service" has considered
Section 25B of the Act 1947 and has held that
in terms of sub Section (2) of Section 25B of
the Act 1947 if a workman, during a period of
12 actual months preceding the date with
regard to which calculation is given, has
actually worked under the employer for 240
days then he will be deemed to be in continuous
service for a period of one year.

28. In this case the alleged termination of
the workman took place on 01.09.2001 while his
working has been considered by the learned
Tribunal (as corrected on 10.09.2018) from
December 1999 to December 2000 meaning
thereby that the services upto 31.08.2001 have
not been considered by the learned Tribunal for
calculating the continuous service of the
workman. Thus once the alleged continuous
service of the workman right upto 31.08.2001
has not been considered by the learned Tribunal
consequently it cannot be said that the petitioners
have violated the provisions of the Act 1947.
Thus this ground also finds favour of the Court.

29. Keeping in view the aforesaid
discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The
impugned award dated 16.05.2017 published
on 03.04.2018, a copy of which is annexure 1 to
the petition, is set aside. The matter is remitted
to the learned Tribunal to pass a fresh order on
merits. As the matter is pending since long as
such let an order be passed within a period of
six months from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this order after hearing all the parties
concerned.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 277
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE AJIT SINGH, J.

Writ-C No. 29605 of 2022

Basoo Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents
278 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ramesh Chandra Yadav, Sri Ram
Krishna Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., A.S.G.I., Sri Narendra Singh

(A) Civil law - Issuance of passport - The
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
Section 155(1) - Information as to noncognizable cases and investigation of such
cases , Section 468 - Bar to taking
cognizance after lapse of the period of
limitation , The Passports Act, 1967 -
Section 6 - Refusal of passports, travel
documents. etc. , Section 22 - Power to
exempt.

Online application form for issuance of passport
- rejected on basis of two reports of noncognizable cases - view of Director General of
Police - reports with regard to the noncognizable cases could not be made the basis
for rejecting an application for issuance of
passport if they had not been investigated into -
no appeal provided against order of rejection -
hence petition.(Para - 1, 2, 3, 14)

HELD:-No non-cognizable report which was
registered could be taken into cognizance if no
investigation was ordered by the concerned
Magistrate. Even during the pendency of any
criminal case, passport could be issued/renewed
as per the Government Order dated 25.8.1993 if
the Court passes orders for that purpose.
Direction issued .(Para - 14)

Petition Allowed. (E-7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J.)

1. The instant writ petition has been
filed for the issuance of a writ of
mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to
issue a passport in favour of the petitioner.
A further prayer has been made that the
respondent no.3 i.e. the Passport Sewa
Kendra, Varanasi may be directed to
appropriately
take
action
upon
the
application which the petitioner had filed
for the issuance of his passport.

2. In the instant case, the petitioner on
28.6.2022
had
filled-up
an
online
application form for the issuance of a
passport and he was given an appointment
for appearing before the passport office on
5.8.2022 at 11.30 AM. When the petitioner
reached on 5.8.2022 before the passport
office, he was informed that there was a
police report against the petitioner which
stated that there were reports with regard to
non-cognizable
cases
being
NCR
No.111/2012 and NCR No.114/2018 and
therefore, the passport could not be issued
to him.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
states that thereafter the petitioner went
back to district Azamgarh and filed an
application on 11.8.2022 praying that the
Court i.e. the Court of Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate may call for a report
from police station Nijamabad, District
Azamgarh with regard to the two NCRs
being
NCR
No.111/2012
and
NCR
No.114/2018. The Court on the very same
day passed an order directing the Station
House Officer, Police Station, Nijamabad
to submit a report with regard to the
petitioner's application. On 1.9.2022, the
Station House Officer submitted a report
wherein it was mentioned that there was no
order of the Court for investigating into
non-cognizable
cases
which
were
registered against the petitioner as NCR
No.111/2012
and
NCR
No.114/2018.
Learned counsel states that since the
petitioner's
application
for
issuing
a
passport had already been rejected and
there is no appeal provided against the
order of rejection, the petitioner has filed
the instant writ petition.
1 All. Basoo Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors.
279

4. When the case was being argued as
a fresh case, learned counsel for the
petitioner had argued that as per the
provisions of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as
the "Cr.P.C."), if there was no order of any
Magistrate for investigation under section
155(1) Cr.P.C. then no police officer could
investigate a non-cognizable case.

5. For convenience, section 155
Cr.P.C. is being reproduced here as under :-

"155. Information as to noncognizable cases and investigation of
such cases

.--(1) When information is given
to an officer in charge of a police station of
the commission within the limits of such
station of a non-cognizable offence, he
shall enter or cause to be entered the
substance of the information in a book to
be kept by such officer in such form as the
State Government may prescribe in this
behalf, and refer the informant to the
Magistrate.

(2)
No
police
officer
shall
investigate a non-cognizable case without
the order of a Magistrate having power to
try such case or commit the case for trial.

(3) Any police officer receiving
such order may exercise the same powers
in respect of the investigation (except the
power to arrest without warrant) as an
officer in charge of a police station may
exercise in a cognizable case.

(4) Where a case relates to two or
more offences of which at least one is
cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be
a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the
other offences are non-cognizable."

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
had also argued that normally noncognizable cases had punishments which
were ranging from one year to seven years
and he submitted that as per section 468
Cr.P.C., if cognizance of the cases could
not be taken after a lapse of limitation, then
the reports of the non-cognizable cases
were worthless documents. Since, learned
counsel for the petitioner has relied upon
section 468 Cr.P.C., the same is being
reproduced here as under :

"468. Bar to taking cognizance
after lapse of the period of limitation

.--(1)
Except
as
otherwise
provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court,
shall take cognizance of an offence of the
category specified in sub-section (2), after
the expiry of the period of limitation.

(2) The period of limitation shall
be--

(a) six months, if the offence is
punishable with fine only;

(b) one year, if the offence is
punishable with imprisonment for a term
not exceeding one year;

(c) three years, if the offence is
punishable with imprisonment for a term
exceeding one year but not exceeding three
years.

(3) For the purposes of this
section, the period of limitation, in relation
to offences which may be tried together,
shall be determined with reference to the
offence which is punishable with the more
severe punishment or, as the case may be,
the most severe punishment."

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further stated that when there was no
investigation ordered by the Magistrate, as
was clear from the report of the Station
House Officer dated 1.9.2022, then the
petitioner also had no knowledge about the
pendency of the case. He, therefore,
submits that while he was filling the
application form then also he could not
280 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
have
mentioned
about
the
NCR
No.111/2012 and NCR No.114/2018.

8. When the case was argued as a
fresh case and the Court was of the view
that the NCRs could not be taken
cognizance of when the Magistrate had not
ordered for any investigation, a direction
was issued to the Director General of
Police to send instructions. The orders
dated 19.11.2022 and 28.11.2022 are being
reproduced here as under :

Order dated 19.11.2022

"Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner states that the Police had sent a
report on 01.09.2022 with regard to the fact
that there were two NCRs being NCR
No.111 of 2012 and NCR No.114 of 2018
where no order from the Court was passed
for
investigation
and,
therefore,
no
investigation had taken place.

Learned counsel for the petitioner
states that as per the Cr.P.C. if there was no
investigation
on
the
orders
of
the
Magistrate for an NCR then definitely there
was no case pending against the petitioner
and, therefore, such a report should not
have been sent.

The Director General of Police,
Uttar Pradesh may send instructions in the
matter. While getting the instructions he
may inform the Court as to whether it was
necessary for sending a report with regard
to such NCRs, in which no action had been
taken by the Magistrate for investigation.

Place this case on 28.11.2022 as
fresh at 10.00 am."

Order dated 28.11.2022

"Instructions filed today be kept
on record.

The
Court
had
asked
for
instructions specifying as to whether it was
necessary for sending a report with regard
to an N.C.R. in which no action had been
taken by the Magistrate for investigation
when the period for the punishment had
lapsed.

The Director General of Police
was required to send the instructions but
some Superintendent of Police has sent
them. The Court also was not satisfied with
the averments made in paragraph no. 7 of
the instructions.

Place this petition as fresh on
30.11.2022 at 10:00am.

On the next date, the Director
General of Police may send instructions.
He would clearly specify as to whether
when the police report is given for the
purposes of the report asked by the passport
authorities, could a report be submitted if
the N.C.R. filed against an individual was
for an offence in which no action could be
taken as per the provisions of Section 468
of Cr.P.C.

This order was passed in the
presence of Sri Narendra Singh learned
counsel for the Union of India."

9. On 30.11.2022 learned Standing
Counsel Sri Manvendra Dixit produced the
instructions which he had received from the
Director General of Police. The same is
being reproduced here as under :-

"eq[;ky; iqfyl egkfuns'kd mRrj izns'k

fof/k izdks"B] izFke ry] Vkoj &2] iqfyl
eq[;ky;] xkserh uxj foLrkj ] y[kuÅ& 226002

i=kad%Mhth&nl&fo0iz0&fjV&651@2022

fnukad % uoEcj 29] 2022

lsok esa]

eq[; LFkk;h vf/koDrk]

ek0 mPp U;k;ky; bykgkcknA

fo"k;% flfoy fjV ;kfpdk la[;k& 29605
@2022 cklq ;kno cuke Hkkjr la?k o 4 vU; esa ek0
mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad &
28-11-2022 ds vuqikyu esa Instruction miyC/k
djk;s tkus fo"k;dA
1 All. Basoo Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors.
281
egksn;]

d`i;k mijksDr fo"k;d Jh ekuosUnz
nhf{kr] LFkk;h vf/koDr] ek0 mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn
ds i= fnukafdr 28-11-2022 dk lanHkZ xzg.k djsa]
ftlds }kjk ek0 mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k
fnukafdr 19-11-2022 rFkk 28-11-2022 dh Nk;kizfr
layXu djrs gq, ek0 U;k;ky; }kjk fn;s x;s funsZ'kksa
ds vuqikyu esa Instruction miyC/k djk;s tkus dh
vis{kk dh x;h gSaA

;kph cklq ;kno iq= tkfcj ;kno ds
ikliksVZ vkosnu izkFkZuk i= ij vktex<+ iqfyl }kjk
izLrqr fjiksVZ esa iz'u la[;k&2 esa mRrj esa NCR
la[;k&111@2012 /kkjk&323] 504] 506 Hkknfo rFkk
NCR la[;k& 114@2018 /kkjk& 323] 504 Hkknfo
vafdr djrs gq, ikliksVZ tkjh u djus dh laLrqfr dh
x;h tcfd ;kph ds fo:) iathd`r NCR dh
foospuk ugha dh x;h FkhA

ikliksVZ ds dk;kZy; ls izkIr iqfyl
osjhfQds'ku fjikVZ esa Li"V :i ls ;g iz'u iwNk x;k
gS fd&

Is the applicant facing any
criminal charges in any Court? (If 'YES',
please provide specific details of criminal
case)

mijksDr i'u ds mRrj esa ;kph ds fo:)
iathd`r ,slh NCR dk mYys[k djrs gq;s] ftudh
foospuk ugha dh x;h gS] ikliksVZ tkjh u fd;s tkus
dh laLrqfr ugha dh tk ldrh gSA

d`i;k mijksDr rF;ksa ls ek0 U;k;ky; dks
voxr djkrs g;s izdj.k dk fuLrkj.k djkus dk d"V
djsaA

 1⁄4nsosUnz flag pkSgku1⁄2

iqfyl egkfuns'kd

mRrj izns'k"

10. The Director General of Police very
categorically stated that such reports of noncognizable cases which were not investigated
into could not be the reason for refusing a
passport to the petitioner. Learned Standing
Counsel submitted that the reasons for the
rejection of an application for the issuing of a
passport had been enumerated in section 6 of
the Passports Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred
to as the "Passports Act").

11. For convenience, section 6 of the
Passports Act is being reproduced here as
under :-

"6. Refusal of passports, travel
documents. etc.

-- (1) Subject to the other
provisions of this Act, the passport authority
shall refuse to make an endorsement for
visiting any foreign country under clause (b)
or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 5
on any one or more of the following grounds,
and on no other ground, namely.--

(a) that the applicant may, or is
likely to, engage in such country in activities
prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of
India;

(b) that the presence of the
applicant in such country may, or is likely to,
be detrimental to the security of India;

(c) that the presence of the
applicant in such country may, or is likely to,
prejudice the friendly relations of India with
that or any other country;

(d) that in the opinion of the
Central Government the presence of the
applicant in such country is not in the public
interest.

(2) Subject to the other provisions
of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse
to issue a passport or travel document for
visiting any foreign country under clause (c)
of sub-section (2) of Section 5 on any one or
more of the following grounds, and on no
other ground, namely:--

(a) that the applicant is not a
citizen of India;

(b) that the applicant may, or is
likely to, engage outside India in activities
prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity
of India;

(c) that the departure of the
applicant from India may, or is likely to, be
detrimental to the security of India;
282 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(d) that the presence of the
applicant outside India may, or is likely to,
prejudice the friendly relations of India
with any foreign country;

(e) that the applicant has, at any
time during the period of five years
immediately preceding the date of his
application, been convicted by a court in
India for any offence involving moral
turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof
to imprisonment for not less than two
years;

(f) that proceedings in respect of
an offence alleged to have been committed
by the applicant are pending before a
criminal court in India;

(g) that a warrant or summons for
the appearance, or a warrant for the arrest,
of the applicant has been issued by a court
under any law for the time being in force or
that an order prohibiting the departure from
India of the applicant has been made by
any such court;

(h) that the applicant has been
repatriated and has not reimbursed the
expenditure incurred in connection with
such repatriation;

(i) that in the opinion of the
Central Government the issue of a passport
or travel document to the applicant will not
be in the public interest."

12. Learned Standing Counsel further
submitted that with regard to pendency of
criminal cases, section 6(2)(e) and (f) of the
Passports Act were relevant. Learned
Standing Counsel submitted that the
issuance of a passport could be refused
under section 6(2)(e) of the Passports Act if
in the five years immediately preceding the
date of the application, the applicant had
been convicted by a Court in India for any
offence involving moral turpitude and
sentenced
in
respect
thereof
to
imprisonment for not less than two years.
Learned Standing Counsel further relying
upon section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act
stated that if proceedings in respect of an
offence alleged to have been committed by
the applicant are pending before a Criminal
Court in India then also the passport
application could be rejected. However,
learned Standing Counsel submitted that as
per the notification gazetted on 25.8.1993
which was issued under section 22 of the
Passports Act by the Government of India,
Ministry of External Affairs, passports
could be issued in certain circumstances
even while a criminal case was pending if
there were orders of the Court. Since,
learned Standing Counsel brought to the
notice of the Court the Government Order
dated 25.8.1993, the same is being
reproduced here as under :-

"GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

MINISTRY
OF
EXTERNAL
AFFAIRS

NOTIFICATION

New Delhi, the 25th August,
1993

G.S.R. 570(E). - In exercise of
the powers conferred by clause (a) of
section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967 (15 of
1967)
and
in
supersession
of
the
notification of the Government of India in
the Ministry of External Affairs no.
G.S.R.298(E), dated the 14th April, 1976,
the Central Government, being of the
opinion that it is necessary in public
interest to do so, hereby exempts citizens of
India against whom proceedings in respect
of an offence alleged to have been
committed by them are pending before a
criminal court in India and who produce
orders from the court concerned permitting
them to depart from India, from the
operation of the provisions of Clause (f) of
sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the said Act,
1 All. Basoo Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors.
283
subject
to
the
following
conditions,
namely:-

(a) the passport to the issued to
every such citizen shall be issued--

(i) for the period specified in
order of the court referred to above, if the
court specifies a period for which the
passport has to be issued; or

(ii) if no period either for the
issue of the passport or for the travel
abroad is specified in such order, the
passport shall be issued for a period one
year,

(iii)
if
such
order
gives
permission to travel abroad for a period less
than one year, but does not specify the
period validity of the passport, the passport
shall be issued for one year; or

(iv)
if
such
order
gives
permission to travel abroad for a period
exceeding one year, and does not specify
the validity of the passport, then the
passport shall be issued for the period of
travel abroad specified in the order.

(b) any passport issued in terms of
a(ii) and a(iii) above can be further renewed
for one year at a time, provided the applicant
has not travelled abroad for the period
sanctioned by the court; and provided further
that, in the meantime, the order of the court is
not cancelled or modified;

(c) any passport issued in terms
of a(i) above can be further renewed only
on the basis of a fresh court order
specifying a further period of validity of the
passport or specifying a period for travel
abroad;

(d) the said citizen shall give an
undertaking in writing to the passport
issuing authority that he shall, if required
by the court concerned, appear before it at
any time during the continuance in force of
the passport so issued.

[No.VI/401/37/79]

L.K.
PONAPPA,
Jt.
Secy.
(CPV)"

13. In this connection, the provisions
of Section 22 of the Passports Act are also
relevant which read as under:-

"22. Power to exempt.--Where
the Central Government is of the opinion
that it is necessary or expedient in the
public interest so to do, it may, by
notification in the Official Gazette and
subject to such conditions, if any, as it may
specify in the notification,--

(a) exempt any person or class of
persons from the operation of all or any of
the provisions of this Act or the rules made
thereunder; and

(b) as often as may be, cancel any
such notification and again subject, by a
like notification, the person or class of
persons
to
the
operation
of
such
provisions."

14. Having heard learned counsel for
the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel
and
after
having
gone
through
the
instructions which have been sent by the
Director General of Police, the Court is
definitely of the view that no noncognizable report which was registered
could be taken into cognizance if no
investigation was ordered by the concerned
Magistrate. Even though in the instant case,
whether the passport can be refused on the
basis of the pendency of the criminal case
is not the question involved, we are of the
view that even during the pendency of any
criminal
case,
passport
could
be
issued/renewed as per the Government
Order dated 25.8.1993 if the Court passes
orders for that purpose. In the instant case,
we do find that the application of the
petitioner was rejected on the basis of the
two reports of non-cognizable cases namely
284 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
NCR No.111/2012 and NCR No.114/2018.
The Director General of Police has also
given his view that the reports with regard
to the non-cognizable cases could not be
made the basis for rejecting an application
for issuance of passport if they had not
been investigated into.

15. Under such circumstances, we
issue the following directions :-

(1) The passport form of the
petitioner for the issuance of a passport be
considered within a period of two weeks
from the date of presentation of a certified
copy of this order before the respondent
no.2-Regional Passport Officer, Regional
Passport Office, Vipin Khand, Gomti
Nagar, Lucknow;

(2) Since we are finding that in
quite a few cases the reports of noncognizable cases in which the concerned
Magistrate had not even ordered for
investigation were being taken into account
for rejection of passport, we issue a
direction to the Director General of Police
to instruct his officers to give a report with
regard to the pendency of reports in noncognizable cases after appropriate and
proper application of mind;

(3)
Outright
the
passport
applications be not rejected under section
6(2)(f) of the Passports Act if orders of the
Court, where the criminal case is pending,
have been passed as per the Government
Order dated 25.8.1993. The Director
General of Police to issue notification in
this regard also.

16. With these observations, the writ
petition is, accordingly, allowed.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 284
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.11.2022
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Writ-C No. 32884 of 2022

Lalji Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shri Ram Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Anand Tiwari, C.S.C.

(A) Writ - Issuance of mandamus -
mandamus may be issued to compel the
authorities to do something but it must
be shown that there is a statute which
imposes a legal duty and aggrieved
party has a legal right under the statute
to enforce legal rights - a right not
exercised for a long time becomes nonexistent - mere representation does not
extend
the
period
of
limitation
-
aggrieved person has to approach the
Court
expeditiously
and
within
reasonable time.(Para - 11,16,17)

Land of petitioner acquired - received full
compensation - provided under Section 23 of
Land Acquisition Act - controversy - to
provide employment - in lieu of land acquired
by
respondent-Corporation
or
by
other
authorities - various representations made -
no action taken on representations - no
statute shown - for which a mandamus has
been sought - hence present writ petition.
(Para - 4,7,11)

HELD:-Petitioner not placed any statutes
before court on basis of which an employment
could be given to him in lieu of the land,
which was taken by the Corporation in the
year 1985. No relief could be granted to
petitioner. Laches on part of petitioner for
approaching Court. (Para -15,16,18)

Petition Dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited: