# Charan Singh v. The State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 12 ILRA 748
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-12-11
- **Case number:** Writ -C No. 43025 of 2018
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma, Vinod Diwakar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/charan-singh-v-the-state-of-u-p-ors-51347
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Civil Law- Reference- Revenue Law - U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 - Sections 230 &
231 - Repeal and saving of rights - Suit
instituted under U.P. Zamindari Abolition
and
Land
Reforms
Act,
1950
-
Maintainability of revision or appeal under
repealed Act after enforcement of 2006
Code - Held, right to appeal or revision is
a substantive and vested right - Such
right
continues
unless
expressly
or
impliedly
taken
away
by
the
new
enactment - Section 230(2)(d) saves the
remedy of revision/appeal - Section 231
clarifies that pending cases shall be
decided under old law-reference answered
accordingly. (Paras 14, 15, and 16)

HELD:
Having heard learned counsel for the parties
and having gone through the record, we are of
the view that the learned Single Judge, who had
made the reference, had not considered the
provisions of Section 230(2)(d) of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006, in its right perspective,
and therefore, while only considering the
provision of Section 231 of the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 the reference was made. Had the
court been shown the provisions of Section
230(2)(d) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 then
it would have become clear that such remedies
as were available to the party which had filed
any lis before the commencement of the new
Act then all the remedies would have continued
as were available to the litigant at the time of
the filing of the Suit. All remedies upon the filing
of the Suit namely the filing of Appeals, Second
Appeals, Revisions etc. are really but steps in a
series of proceedings connected by an intrinsic
unity and are to be treated to be as a one legal
proceeding. The Right of Appeal is not a matter
of procedure but is a substantive Right. The
12 All. Charan Singh Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
749
institution of a Suit carries with it the implication
that all remedies in force at the time of the filing
of the Suit were to be preserved to the parties
till the rest of the career of the Suit. The Appeal
or a remedy to go to higher Court accrues to a
litigant on the very date the lis commences and
although it may be actually exercised when the
adverse judgment is pronounced such right is to
be governed by the law prevailing at the date of
the institution of the Suit. In the instant case,
since all remedies available at the time of the
notification of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, had
to continue, the remedy of Revision would also
continue, even if it was not an inherent right
which had accrued to the litigant as would be
the case with an appeal. (Para 14)

Any repealing law which repeals an earlier
law shall not affect the remedies available
to a party which were available to the party
on the date when the suit was filed. It
would continue to be in existence for the
litigant just as it was available to him or her
on the date of the filing the lis. A vested
right to go to a higher Court can be taken
away by a subsequent enactment if the
latter expressly provides or a bare reading
of it shows that the right of going to a
higher Court as per the earlier law had been
by a necessary intendment taken away.
(Para 15)

In the case at hand, we find that not only by
the repealing act the remedies of going to a
higher Court had not been taken away but in
fact they had been continued by the
provisions of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006,
as is contained under section 230(2)(d) of
the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The section
231 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 only
St.s that all the cases pending before the
Revenue Courts immediately before the
commencement of the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006 whether any case, Appeal, Revision or
otherwise shall be decided in accordance
with the provisions of appropriate law which
would have been applicable, as if the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 had not been passed.
Hence, section 231 of the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006, was a provision which only
clarifies that a remedy which was available
at the time when the lis was filed and had
been availed would be decided by the
provisions of

## Text

748 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
done in furtherance of various directions
issued by the N.G.T., it has remedy either
to make its say before the N.G.T. with
appropriate submissions and prayers or if it
feels that the N.G.T. had no competence to
entrust any action upon joint committee or
U.P. P.C.B. or that any order passed by the
N.G.T. is not otherwise in accordance with
law, it has a remedy to file an appeal before
the Supreme Court under Section 22 of the
Act of 2010. The writ jurisdiction does not
come in the way at all.

21. In view of above discussion,
we find that challenge made to the orders
passed in furtherance of the orders issued
by the N.G.T. and as a consequence
thereof, cannot sustain in writ jurisdiction
and any relief granted to the petitioner
against the impugned demand would have
an effect of expressly or impliedly staying
or setting aside orders passed by the N.G.T.
This being impermissible in view of
appellate forum being Supreme Court as
per Section 22 of the Act of 2010, we are of
the view that the reliefs claimed in the
instant writ petition, either interim or final,
cannot be granted.

22.

The
writ
petition
is,
accordingly, dismissed, however, without
prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to
approach N.G.T. or Supreme Court for
redressal of its grievance.
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 748
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

Writ -C No. 43025 of 2018
with
Writ-C Nos 5671 of 2023 & 9440 of 2019

Charan Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vishal Khandelwal

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Manu Singh

Civil Law- Reference- Revenue Law - U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 - Sections 230 &
231 - Repeal and saving of rights - Suit
instituted under U.P. Zamindari Abolition
and
Land
Reforms
Act,
1950
-
Maintainability of revision or appeal under
repealed Act after enforcement of 2006
Code - Held, right to appeal or revision is
a substantive and vested right - Such
right
continues
unless
expressly
or
impliedly
taken
away
by
the
new
enactment - Section 230(2)(d) saves the
remedy of revision/appeal - Section 231
clarifies that pending cases shall be
decided under old law-reference answered
accordingly. (Paras 14, 15, and 16)

HELD:
Having heard learned counsel for the parties
and having gone through the record, we are of
the view that the learned Single Judge, who had
made the reference, had not considered the
provisions of Section 230(2)(d) of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006, in its right perspective,
and therefore, while only considering the
provision of Section 231 of the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 the reference was made. Had the
court been shown the provisions of Section
230(2)(d) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 then
it would have become clear that such remedies
as were available to the party which had filed
any lis before the commencement of the new
Act then all the remedies would have continued
as were available to the litigant at the time of
the filing of the Suit. All remedies upon the filing
of the Suit namely the filing of Appeals, Second
Appeals, Revisions etc. are really but steps in a
series of proceedings connected by an intrinsic
unity and are to be treated to be as a one legal
proceeding. The Right of Appeal is not a matter
of procedure but is a substantive Right. The
12 All. Charan Singh Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
749
institution of a Suit carries with it the implication
that all remedies in force at the time of the filing
of the Suit were to be preserved to the parties
till the rest of the career of the Suit. The Appeal
or a remedy to go to higher Court accrues to a
litigant on the very date the lis commences and
although it may be actually exercised when the
adverse judgment is pronounced such right is to
be governed by the law prevailing at the date of
the institution of the Suit. In the instant case,
since all remedies available at the time of the
notification of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, had
to continue, the remedy of Revision would also
continue, even if it was not an inherent right
which had accrued to the litigant as would be
the case with an appeal. (Para 14)

Any repealing law which repeals an earlier
law shall not affect the remedies available
to a party which were available to the party
on the date when the suit was filed. It
would continue to be in existence for the
litigant just as it was available to him or her
on the date of the filing the lis. A vested
right to go to a higher Court can be taken
away by a subsequent enactment if the
latter expressly provides or a bare reading
of it shows that the right of going to a
higher Court as per the earlier law had been
by a necessary intendment taken away.
(Para 15)

In the case at hand, we find that not only by
the repealing act the remedies of going to a
higher Court had not been taken away but in
fact they had been continued by the
provisions of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006,
as is contained under section 230(2)(d) of
the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The section
231 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 only
St.s that all the cases pending before the
Revenue Courts immediately before the
commencement of the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006 whether any case, Appeal, Revision or
otherwise shall be decided in accordance
with the provisions of appropriate law which
would have been applicable, as if the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 had not been passed.
Hence, section 231 of the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006, was a provision which only
clarifies that a remedy which was available
at the time when the lis was filed and had
been availed would be decided by the
provisions of the Old Act. There is no
provision in the new Act which after
repealing the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950,
snatches from a litigant the right of further
remedies as were provided under the U.P.
Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, and hence we are
answering the reference by observing that
the
Revision
which
was
filed
by
the
petitioner could have been filed and there
was no provision in the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006, which had expressly taken away the
vested right of having a remedy to go to a
higher Court by means of a Revision. (Para
16)

Reference answered accordingly. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1. Anand Kumar Singh & anr. Vs St. of U.P. Thru.
Seyc. Revenue U.P. Civil Sectt. & ors. reported in
2017 (135) RD 642

2. Garikapati Veeraya Vs N. Subbiah Choudhry &
ors., AIR 1957 SC 540

3. ECGC Ltd. Vs Mokul Shriram EPC JV, (2022) 6
SCC 704

4. M/s Martin and Harris Pvt. Ltd. & anr. Vs
Rajendra Metha & ors., (2022) 8 SCC 527

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

1. Heard Shri Vishal Khandelwal, Shri
Harsh Vikram, Shri Gaurav Singh and Shri
Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for
the petitioners in all the connected writ
petitions and Shri Neelabh Srivastava, Shri
Sudhanshu Pandey, Shri Mohd. Zaid, learned
counsel for the private respondents in all the
connected writ petitions, Shri S.N. Srivastava
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
and Shri Krishna Kant Singh, learned counsel
for the Gaon Sabha.

2. The instant reference to the
following effect has been placed before us
750 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by Hon'ble the Chief Justice. The issue
raised in the reference is reproduced herein
below for the sake of clarity:

"Whether
when
Section
231 of the Code specifically states
that only such proceedings which
were
pending
before
the
commencement of the Code would
be decided in accordance with
provisions of the law under which
those proceedings were filed then
would an Appeal or Revision
against
the
orders/judgments/
decrees which would be passed in
those proceedings be governed by
the previous enactment i.e. the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950 or by the
provisions of the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006."

3. In the instant petition, the order
under challenge was passed in a revision
filed by the applicants against the judgment
and decree dated 19.8.2014 passed in a suit
filed under section 229B of the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act,
1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the U.P.
Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950) and on specific
query by the Court from the petitioners'
counsel about the maintainability of the
revision on in contrast to the remedy of
appeal available under section 207 of the
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 wherein a party
aggrieved by the final decree passed in any
suit specified in Column-II of the 3rdSchedule appended with the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 could have filed, the learned
counsel
had
taken
recourse
to
the
provisions of section 333 of the U.P. Z.A.
& L.R. Act, 1950.

4. Therefore, the learned Single
Judge referred the matter for reference to
Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court and
that is how the instant reference petition is
placed before this Court.

5. In response to the issue raised in
reference,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners submits that (i) since there is
already a judgement of this Court passed in
Misc. Single No.8354 of 20141 laying
down the law that after the enactment of
the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which
enforced w.e.f. 11.2.2016, the remedy as
was available in the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act
shall continue to remain in force for the
petitioners as the suit was filed prior to
11.2.2016 and the provisions of U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 would be applicable
only on the suits filed post 11.2.2016, (ii)
as per the judgement and order dated
20.4.2017 passed in Anand Kumar Singh
& Another case (supra), a Revision shall
be maintainable in the instant case as per
the provisions of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act,
1950,
(iii)
the
Supreme
Court
in
Garikapati Veeraya v.
N.
Subbiah
Choudhry and others2 has held that the
legal pursuit of a remedy, suit, appeal and
second appeal are really steps in a series of
proceedings all connected by an intrinsic
unity and ought to be regarded as one legal
proceedings. The institutions of the suit
carries with it the implication that all rights
of appeal then in force are preserved to the
parties thereto till the rest of the career of
the suit, and (iv) such legal remedy of
appeal as was available to a litigant on the
date of the filing of the suit, in fact, is a
substantive right and right to file an appeal
or revision is not a mere matter of
procedure but it is a right, which accrues to
a litigant from the date when the lis
commenced. Even though that right could
be exercised when an adverse judgement
would be pronounced, the law with regard
to the filing of appeal or revision shall be
12 All. Charan Singh Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
751
governed by the law prevailing on the date
of the institution of the suit or proceeding
and not by the law that would prevail on
the date of the decision. For clarity, the
relevant portion of Garikapati Veeraya
case (supra) is extracted herein below:

"23. From the decisions
cited above the following principles
clearly emerge:
(i) That the legal pursuit of
a remedy, suit, appeal and second
appeal are really but steps in a
series of proceedings all connected
by an intrinsic unity and are to be
regarded as one legal proceeding.
(ii) The right of appeal is
not a mere matter of procedure but
is a substantive right.
(iii) The institution of the
suit carries with it the implication
that all rights of appeal then in
force are preserved to the parties
thereto till the rest of the career of
the suit.
(iv) The right of appeal is a
vested right and such a right to
enter the superior court accrues to
the litigant and exists as on and
from the date the lis commences
and although it may be actually
exercised
when
the
adverse
judgment is pronounced such right
is to be governed by the law
prevailing at the date of the
institution of the suit or proceeding
and not by the law that prevails at
the date of its decision or at the
date of the filing of the appeal.

(v) This vested right of
appeal can be taken away only by a
subsequent enactment, if it so
provides expressly or by necessary
intendment and not otherwise."
6. Learned counsel for the
petitioner next submits that despite the
remedy as provided in Section 230(2) of
the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, and repeal of
U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, the substantive right
to file a revision under the U.P. Z.A. & L.R.
Act arises out of a judgment and decree
passed in a suit filed prior to the enactment
and subsequently enforcement of U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 could not take away
by the new Act. Therefore, since the right
to file a Revision was a remedy recognized
as a substantive right under the U.P. Z.A. &
L.R. Act could not be taken away by the
subsequent enactment of the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 in the instant case.

7. Learned counsel for the
petitioner since has relied upon Section 230
of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the same
is being reproduced here as under for better
understanding:

"230. Repeal. - (1) The
enactments specified in the First
Schedule are hereby repealed.
(2)
Notwithstanding
anything contained in sub-section
(1), the repeal of such enactments
shall not affect-
(a) the continuance in force
of any such enactment in the State
of Uttarakhand;
(b) the previous operation
of any such enactment or anything
duly done or suffered there under;
or
(c) any other enactment in
which such enactment has been
applied, incorporated or referred
to; or
(d) the validity, invalidity,
effect or consequences of anything
already done or suffered, or any
right, title or obligation or liability
752 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
already
acquired,
accrued
or
incurred (including, in particular,
the vesting in the State of all estates
and the cessation of all rights, title
and
interest
of
all
the
intermediaries
therein),or
any
remedy or proceeding in respect
thereof, or any release or discharge
of or from any debt, penalty,
obligation,
liability,
claim
or
demand, or any indemnity already
granted or the proof of any past act
or thing; or
(e) any principle or rule of
law or established jurisdiction,
form
or
course
of
pleading,
practice or procedure or existing
usage, custom, privilege,restriction,
exemption, office or appointment:
Provided
that
anything
done or any action taken (including
any rules, manuals,assessments,
appointments and transfers made,
notifications,
summonses,
notices,warrants,
proclamation
issued, powers conferred, leases
granted, boundary marks fixed,
records of rights and other records
prepared or maintained, rights
acquired or liabilities incurred)
under any such enactment shall,
insofar as they are not inconsistent
with the provisions of this Code, be
deemed to have been done or taken
under the corresponding provisions
of this Code, and shall continue to
be in force accordingly, unless and
until they are superseded by
anything done or action taken
under this Code."

8. Learned counsel for the
petitioners next submits that as per Section
230(2)(d) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, any
remedy or proceeding in respect of any
order passed in the proceedings which
initiated under the earlier Act, has been
saved by Section 230 of the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006. He next submits that Section
231 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, is
only a section which states that all cases
pending
before
the
revenue
court
immediately before the commencement of
the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, whether in
appeal, revision, review or otherwise,
would be decided in accordance with the
provisions of the appropriate law, and
appropriate law means the law which was
prevailing at the time of institution of the
suit and not otherwise.

9. Learned counsel for the
petitioners next submits that the reference,
inasmuch as, it questions as to whether by
virtue of Section 231 of the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006, remedies as were available to a
litigant at the time of filing of the suit under
the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, would still
be available after the commencement of the
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, and the same
shall not be governed by the provisions of
Section 231 of the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006, but shall accordingly be decided
while taking the assistance of Section
230(2)(d) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
He, therefore, submits that when the
remedy of filing of a revision as was
available to the petitioners by virtue of
Section 333 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act,
1950, the same shall be preserved to the
parties till the rest of the career of the suit.

10. Learned counsel for the
petitioners further submits that the vested
right of appeal can be taken away only by a
subsequent enactment, if it so provides,
expressly or by necessary intendment and
not otherwise. He has also relied upon
Section 6 of the U.P. General Clauses Act,
1904, and specifically referred to Section 6
12 All. Charan Singh Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
753
(c) and, therefore, the same is being
reproduced here as under:

"6. (c) affect any right,
privilege, obligation or liability
acquired, accrued or incurred
under any enactment so repealed;"

11. To substantiate the aforesaid
arguments,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners has relied upon the ratio culled
out in judgments referred herein by the
Supreme Court in ECGC Ltd. v. Mokul
Shriram EPC JV 3and M/s Martin and
Harris Private Limited and another v.
Rajendra Metha & Others4, and concluded
with the submissions that the applications
or suits or other proceedings which had
been filed under old act (Repealed Act)
pending on the date of commencement of
the new act shall be continued or disposed
of in accordance with the provisions of the
old act (Repealed Act) as if the old act had
continued and was still in force.

12. Shri Satendra Nath Srivastava,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
for the State-respondents also appeared and
assisted the Court in deciding the case and
submitted that, in fact, on 3.11.2020, the
Government had also issued a Government
Order elaborating that the earlier remedies
as were available under the U.P. Z.A. &
L.R. Act, 1950, and under the U.P. Land
Revenue Act, 1901, shall continue to exist
for such a litigant which had filed their lis
before the commencement of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006.

13. Learned counsel appearing for
the respondents in few of the cases, namely,
Shri Neelabh Srivastava who appeared for
the respondent no.4 in Writ-C No.14682 of
2021 and Shri Krishna Kant Singh, learned
counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha have
opposed the writ petition and submitted
that under provision of Section 231 of the
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, there was a clear
averment that all cases, Appeals, Revisions,
Reviews or otherwise shall be decided in
accordance with the provisions of the
appropriate law which would have been
applicable to them, had the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006, not been in existence would
mean that the cases, Appeals, Revisions or
Applications alone had to be decided by the
court
which
was
seized
of
those
proceedings. The new Code had not saved
the remedies as were available to the
litigant at the time of the filing of the Suit,
Appeal or Revision.

14. Having heard learned counsel
for the parties and having gone through the
record, we are of the view that the learned
Single Judge, who had made the reference,
had not considered the provisions of
Section 230(2)(d) of the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006, in its right perspective, and
therefore, while only considering the
provision of Section 231 of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 the reference was
made. Had the court been shown the
provisions of Section 230(2)(d) of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 then it would have
become clear that such remedies as were
available to the party which had filed any
lis before the commencement of the new
Act then all the remedies would have
continued as were available to the litigant
at the time of the filing of the Suit. All
remedies upon the filing of the Suit namely
the filing of Appeals, Second Appeals,
Revisions etc. are really but steps in a
series of proceedings connected by an
intrinsic unity and are to be treated to be as
a one legal proceeding. The Right of
Appeal is not a matter of procedure but is a
substantive Right. The institution of a Suit
carries with it the implication that all
754 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
remedies in force at the time of the filing of
the Suit were to be preserved to the parties
till the rest of the career of the Suit. The
Appeal or a remedy to go to higher Court
accrues to a litigant on the very date the lis
commences and although it may be actually
exercised when the adverse judgment is
pronounced such right is to be governed by the
law prevailing at the date of the institution of
the Suit. In the instant case, since all remedies
available at the time of the notification of the
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, had to continue, the
remedy of Revision would also continue, even
if it was not an inherent right which had
accrued to the litigant as would be the case
with an appeal.

15. Any repealing law which repeals
an earlier law shall not affect the remedies
available to a party which were available to the
party on the date when the suit was filed. It
would continue to be in existence for the
litigant just as it was available to him or her on
the date of the filing the lis. A vested right to
go to a higher Court can be taken away by a
subsequent enactment if the latter expressly
provides or a bare reading of it shows that the
right of going to a higher Court as per the
earlier law had been by a necessary
intendment taken away.

16. In the case at hand, we find that
not only by the repealing act the remedies of
going to a higher Court had not been taken
away but in fact they had been continued by
the provisions of the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006, as is contained under section 230(2)(d)
of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The section
231 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 only
states that all the cases pending before the
Revenue Courts immediately before the
commencement of the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006 whether any case, Appeal, Revision or
otherwise shall be decided in accordance with
the provisions of appropriate law which would
have been applicable, as if the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 had not been passed. Hence,
section 231 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006,
was a provision which only clarifies that a
remedy which was available at the time when
the lis was filed and had been availed would
be decided by the provisions of the Old Act.
There is no provision in the new Act which
after repealing the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950,
snatches from a litigant the right of further
remedies as were provided under the U.P.
Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, and hence we are
answering the reference by observing that the
Revision which was filed by the petitioner
could have been filed and there was no
provision in the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006,
which had expressly taken away the vested
right of having a remedy to go to a higher
Court by means of a Revision.

17. The reference is accordingly,
answered. It may be placed before Court
which is now seized with the various petitions
in which the reference was made.

18. The interim order however,
granted earlier, shall continue till the petitions
are decided.
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 754
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ -C No. 1000394 of 2004

Girija Prasad Ojha ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
S.M. Waseem, Diwakar Pratap Pandey, I.M.
Pandey, Ist, Kripa Shankar Shukla, Rameshwar