# C/M and others v. D.I.O.S. and others

- **Citation:** (1999) 2 ILRA 248
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 1999
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-m-and-others-v-d-i-o-s-and-others-39332
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
248

In the rejoinder affidavit the allegations in the counter
affidavit are denied and those in the writ petition are reiterated. In
paragraph 9 of the rejoinder affidavit it is alleged that the respondent
no.2 was not empowered or authorised to utilise the development
fund. It is stated that the alleged payment is farzi and incorrect.

In Govind Swarup Pandey Vs. The Authorised Controller
1981 UPLBEC 17 a Division Bench of this Court has held that the
order of suspension passed against the Head of the Institution is
subject to supervision by the District Inspector Schools and in that
petition it was held that the petitioner was directed to avail of the
alternative remedy before the District Inspector of Schools.

In the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion
that the petitioner should approach the District Inspector of Schools
who will himself hold an enquiry against the respondent no. 2
regarding alleged illegal withdrawal and misutilisation of the
development fund and the District Inspector of Schools after hearing
the Committee of Management and others concerned as well as the
respondent no. 2 shall pass appropriate orders in relation to the same
preferably within six weeks of production of a certified copy of this
order in accordance with law. If the petitioner files a certified copy
of this order before the District Inspector of Schools within two
weeks from the date of this judgment the status quo on the post of
Principal shall be maintained till the completion of enquiry by the
District Inspector of Schools.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'7+
7+$SULO
$SULO
%()25(
%()25(
+21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
+21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
+21·%/( 5. 6,1*+ -
+21·%/( 5. 6,1*+ -
&,9,/ 0,6& :5,7 3(7,7,21 12 2)
&KKLGGD .KDQ
« 3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6WDWH 2I 83 $QG 2WKHUV
« 5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
 $PDU 1DWK %KDUJDYD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQW
 6&
1999
------
C/M and
others
 Vs.
D.I.O.S. and
others
------
M. Katju, J.
1999
------
April, 6
2 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
249
&RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD $UWLFOH UHDG
ZLWK 3XEOLF ,QWHUHVW
OLWLJDWLRQ VFRSH RI KXPEOH DSSHDO WR WKH SXEOLF WR UHIUDLQ IURP
XWLOL]LQJ /RXGVSHDNHUV HLWKHU IRU $NKDQG 5DPD\DQ RU LQ $]DQ
.LUWDQ DQG 4XDXZDOL RU LQ SXEOLF SURJUDPPHFDXVLQJ D JUHDW GHDO
RI LQFRQYHQLHQFH DQG KDUDVVPHQW WR WKH JHQHUDO SXEOLF SDUWLFXODUO\
WR WKRVH ZKR DUH VXIIHULQJ IURP KHDUW SUREOHPVVFRSH RI JHQHUDO
DSSHDO ±LWV ELQLQJ HIIHFWGLVFXVVHG

By the Court

The case of the petitioner is covered by the Division Bench
decision of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42403 of
1998 Mohd v Sharif Saifi Vs State of U.P. and others. We issue the
same direction in this case also.

However we wish to issue a humble appeal to the general
public to refrain from utilizing loudspeakers, whether it is for
Akhand Ramayan, Azan, Kirtan, Quawwali or public programmes,
functions, marriages, or for any such purposes because this is
causing a great deal of inconvenience And harassment to the general
public, particularly to persons who may be having heart problems
and want to get sound rest, students who wish to study, and others
who do not wish to be disturbed.

In our opinion no doubt everyone has a fundamental right
under Article 25 of the Constitution to practice his religion freely,
but this right should not be exercised in a manner which causes
harassment or inconvenience to others. Hence we are issuing this
humble appeal to people of all religions. We make it clear that this is
only a humble appeal and not a binding order on the petitioner or on
anyone. In religious matters coercion should be avoided as that
makes people bigoted or fanatic. Hence the method to be used is
gentle persuasion, and not coercion. We are therefore only issuing a
humble appeal not to use loudspeakers, and are not passing any
order in this connection. We have confidence in the good sense of
the people of this country that they will abide by reasonable and
good suggestions of this court. We made it clear that since this is
only an appeal the authorities will not seek to enforce it, and we are
confident the people of all religions will voluntarily accept it if they
find it fair and reasonable .

With the aforesaid directions and suggestions the writ petition
is finally disposed off.
1999
------
Chhidda
Khan
 Vs.
State of U.P.
and others
------
M. Katju, J.
R.K. Singh,J.
THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
250
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( <$7,1'5$ 6,1*+ -
7+( +21·%/( <$7,1'5$ 6,1*+ -

&,9,/ 0,6& :5,7 3(7,7,21 12 2)
%ULM %DVWL 8G\RJ 'HOKL $JUD
 3HWLWLRQHU
%\HSDVV 5RDG 0DWKXUD
9HUVXV
7KH 6WDWH RI 83 DQG RWKHUV
 5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
 6KUL '36 &KDXKDQ
6KUL %KDUDW -L $JDUZDO
6KUL 7DUXQ $JDUZDO
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
 6&
6KUL $6 'LZDNDU

83 ,QGXVWULDO 'LVSXWH $FW 6HFWLRQ $ %DFN ZDJHV DZDUG
FRQVLVWLQJ UHLQVWDWPHQW ZLWK EDFN ZDJHV ± WKH ODERXU FRXUW VKRXOG
EH FRQVFLRXV DV WR ZKHWKHU WKH SOHD RI μQRW JDLQIXOO\ HPSOR\HG DQ\
ZKHUH HOVH¶ KDV EHHQ WDNHQ DQG SURYHG ± LQ DEVHQFH RI VXFK
GLVFXVVLRQ UHLQVWDWHPHQW ZLWK EDFN ZDJHV FDQQRW EH DZDUGHG ±
PDWWHU UHPLWWHG EDFN WR JLYH VSHFLILF ILQGLQJ RQ WKLV SRLQW DORQH
 3DUD

Case law discussed.
AIR 1978 SC 1410
AIR 1978 SC - 481
AIR 1999 SC - 1160
AIR 1965 Cal. 166
1970 Lab.I.C.629:1970 FLR 70
AIR 1967 SC- 420
(1966) 1 LLJ 730 (S.C.)
1980 (2) SCC. 593-(1980) 1 LLJ- 137
1981 LLJ 369 (SC)
1983 Lab- I.C. 670 (S.C.)
1996 (2) LLJ- 720
AIR 1984 SC- 286
1982 (3) SCC.- 386

1999
------
August, 13