# Co. and others v. State of U.P. and

- **Citation:** (2009) 3 ILRA 992
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2009-10-30
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 57354 of 2009
- **Bench:** A.P. Sahi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/co-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-and-41603
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India
Art.-226-
Expungtion of long term entry in favour
of petitioner-without notice opportunity-

## Text

992 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
with the terms and conditions laid down
in the Government Order issued under the
permission granted by the NCTE.

22. Writ petition is dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.10.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.P. SAHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 57354 of 2009

C/M Lok Bharti Inter College & another

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Chandra Shekhar Srivastav
Sri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri P.K. Srivastava
Sri N.S. Yadav
Sri Ajay Kumar Yadav
C.S.C.

Constitution of India Art-226-Natural
justice-Dismissal
order
passed-in
absence of reply filed by the petitionerinspite of repeated request to supply the
copy
of
complaint
for
proper
explanation-not
given
even
of
the
direction of Court-held- non sustainablenon supply of copy cause great prejudice
the petitioner-order impugned quashed.

Held: Para 6

In the opinion of the Court non-supply of
the said document to the petitioner
inspite of repeated demands violates the
principles of natural justice and the
Court is supported in its opinion by the
Division Bench in the case Rayeen Fruits
Co. and others Vs. State of U.P. and
others reported in 2000 RD 440 and M/s
Nagarjuna Constructions Co. Vs. Govt. of
A.P. and others reported in 2008(12) JT
371 Paragraph 30. On account of nonsupply of the objection filed by the
respondent
no.4
the
cause
of
the
petitioner
has
been
prejudiced
and
therefore, the order impugned dated
13.10.2009 is un-sustainable.

(Delivered by Hon'ble A.P. Sahi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sudhanshu Srivastava
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
P.K.Srivastava for the respondent no.4
and the learned standing counsel for the
respondent nos. 1,2 and 3. In view of the
consent of the learned counsels the
petition is being disposed of finally at this
stage
without
awaiting
any
further
affidavits.

2. The prime issue raised by the
petitioner in this petition is that the
impugned order dated 13.10.2009 is in
violation of principles of natural justice
inasmuch as the directions of this Court in
the judgment dated 3.8.2009 have not
been complied with in right earnest and
the petitioner's claim has been non-suited
without letting the petitioner know about
the objection raised by the respondent
no.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
contends that on account of the aforesaid
twin errors committed by the District
Inspector of Schools the impugned order
is liable to be set aside as it is in gross
violation of principles of natural justice.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
contends that there is no indication or
mention of the demand made by the
petitioner for supplying a copy of the
reply submitted by the respondent no.4 on
29.9.2009.
3 All] C/M, Lok Bharti Inter College and another V. State of U.P. and others
993
4. Sri Srivastava contends that after
having received the contention on behalf
of the petitioner the District inspector of
Schools vide order dated 2.9.2009 called
upon the respondent no.4 to submit his
reply which was submitted and which has
been considered in detail while passing
the impugned order. The error committed
by the District Inspector of Schools is that
inspite of a written request made, the said
reply of the respondent no.4 had never
been made available to the petitioner and
in the absence of any knowledge of the
contents of such objection, the petitioner
had absolutely no occasion to submit a
reply to the same.

5. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties, this Court does not find any
recital in the order dated 13.10.2009 that
the petitioner was ever made aware about
the reply submitted by the respondent
no.4 and the objections taken therein. This
was necessary as the reply submitted by
the respondent no.4 has been accepted by
the District inspector of Schools and has
also been made the basis of passing of the
impugned order. Learned counsel for the
respondents have also not been able to
point out any such material or recital to
that effect.

6. In the opinion of the Court nonsupply of the said document to the
petitioner inspite of repeated demands
violates the principles of natural justice
and the Court is supported in its opinion
by the Division Bench in the case Rayeen
Fruits Co. and others Vs. State of U.P.
and others reported in 2000 RD 440 and
M/s Nagarjuna Constructions Co. Vs.
Govt. of A.P. and others reported in
2008(12) JT 371 Paragraph 30. On
account of non-supply of the objection
filed by the respondent no.4 the cause of
the petitioner has been prejudiced and
therefore, the order impugned dated
13.10.2009 is un-sustainable.

7. For the reasons stated herein
above the order dated 13.10.2009 is set
aside and a direction is issued to the
respondent no.3 to proceed to pass a fresh
order after giving opportunity of hearing
to
the
petitioner
committee
of
management
to
rebut
the
response
submitted by the respondent no.4 as
expeditiously
as
possibly
preferably
within a period of four weeks from the
date of production of a certified copy of
this order before him.

The writ petition is allowed. No
order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED ALLAHABAD: 19:08:2009.
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.P. SAHI J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3268 of 2006

Sanskrit Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd.

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S. Niranjan,
Sri. Dharam Pal Singh
Sri Vinod Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ramesh Upadhyaya
Sri Ajit Kumar Singh
Sri M.C. Tripathi
S.C.

Constitution
of
India
Art.-226-
Expungtion of long term entry in favour
of petitioner-without notice opportunity-