# (Council for Civil Services Union v. Minister of Civil Services) and which has

- **Citation:** (2012) 2 ILRA 893
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-07-13
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25441 of 2012
- **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/council-for-civil-services-union-v-minister-of-civil-services-and-which-has-42199
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Code of Civil Procedure-Order 39 Rule 2
(2) (g) as amended U.P. Amendment Act
1976-Injunction-against
state
from
realizing certain amount towards loanadmittedly Agricultural loan for purchase
of
Tractor
advanced
on
default
in
payment
recovery
certificate
issued
under
Public
money
recovery
Actinjunction suit itself not maintainableWrit Court can not adjudge its validity
setting
as
Appellate
Court-petition
dismissed.

Held: Para 8

Secondly, the jurisdiction under Article
226 or 227 of the Constitution of India
can not be exercised like an appellate
authority by indulging in re-appreciation
of evidence to correct errors of fact or
law. It is exercisable only to correct
jurisdictional errors if the courts below
have acted without jurisdiction or in
flagrant violation of the principles of
natural
justice
or
where
there
is
manifest or patent error apparent on the
face of record.
894 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

## Text

2 All] Lalta Prasad Singh V. State of U.P. and others
893
authority have contravened the law by
acting in excess of the powers which
Parliament has confided in it. ......."

23. This celebrated principle known as
the Wednesbury principle of law was
thereafter relied upon in (1983) I.A.C. 768
(Council for Civil Services Union Vs.
Minister of Civil Services) and which has
thereafter been consistently followed by the
Supreme Court of India and various High
Courts.

24. However,since I have already
recorded a finding that on both the charges
there was no evidence to substantiate the
charges and it was a case of no evidence,
therefore, I am not remitting back the matter
to the enquiry officer for holding a fresh
enquiry. Even otherwise the charge sheets
were issued in the year 1994 and more than
18 years have already lapsed and the
petitioner has suffered enough and it would
not be in the interest of justice to remit the
matter back to the disciplinary authority to
enable him to sift and search for fresh
evidence to prove the guilt of the petitioner.

25. Therefore, keeping strictly within
the parameters laid down for exercise of
power of judicial review in departmental
enquiries, from the above facts and
circumstances the irresistible conclusion is
that both the charges against the petitioner
are based on no evidence and the finding
recorded by the enquiry officer are such
which no man of ordinary prudence or
reason would arrive at.

26. In the circumstances the show
cause
notice
dated
25.11.1994,
the
impugned orders dated 29.11.1994 and
15/31.3.1995 are quashed.

27. The writ petition is allowed. The
petitioner will be reinstated in service with
all consequential benefits.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.07.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25441 of 2012

Lalta Prasad Singh

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Lallan Chaubey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Sri Vipin Sinha

Code of Civil Procedure-Order 39 Rule 2
(2) (g) as amended U.P. Amendment Act
1976-Injunction-against
state
from
realizing certain amount towards loanadmittedly Agricultural loan for purchase
of
Tractor
advanced
on
default
in
payment
recovery
certificate
issued
under
Public
money
recovery
Actinjunction suit itself not maintainableWrit Court can not adjudge its validity
setting
as
Appellate
Court-petition
dismissed.

Held: Para 8

Secondly, the jurisdiction under Article
226 or 227 of the Constitution of India
can not be exercised like an appellate
authority by indulging in re-appreciation
of evidence to correct errors of fact or
law. It is exercisable only to correct
jurisdictional errors if the courts below
have acted without jurisdiction or in
flagrant violation of the principles of
natural
justice
or
where
there
is
manifest or patent error apparent on the
face of record.
894 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Lallan Chaubey,
learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri
Tripathi has appeared for respondent
No.3, State Bank of India.

2. Petitioner has filed this writ
petition assailing judgment and order
dated 27.7.2011 passed by Civil Judge
(S.D.), Varanasi in Original Suit No.1099
of 2010 and the appellate order thereto
dated 20.3.2012 passed by the Additional
District Judge, Court No.14, Varanasi.
The courts below by the aforesaid orders
have refused to grant injunction in favour
of the petitioner in the aforesaid suit.

3. Petitioner had taken a loan of
Rs.3,70,000/- from the State Bank of
India for purchasing a tractor. On account
of non-payment of instalments a recovery
has been issued against him. Therefore, he
instituted suit for permanent injunction. In
the suit, he filed an application for interim
injunction restraining the bank and State
authorities from recovering the loan
amount.

4. The injunction application has
been rejected by the court of first
instance, besides other things, on one of
the grounds that as the recovery certificate
has already been issued by the Collector,
no injunction can be granted in view of
Order XXXIX Rule 2(2)(g) of C.P.C. as
amended by U.P.State Amendment Act,
1976. On merits the court of first instance
held that there is no prima facie case and
balance of convenience in favour of the
petitioner. This order has been affirmed
by the appellate court.

5. The Code of Civil Procedure in its
applicability to the State of U.P. has been
amended vide U.P. Act No.57 of 1976
and it provides for adding a proviso after
Sub-Rule 2 to Rule 2 of Order XXXIX
C.P.C. The said proviso contemplates that
no injunction shall be granted in cases
specified therein below which in clause
(g) refers to proceedings for recovery of
dues recoverable as arrears of land
revenue unless adequate security is
furnished.

6. Thus, in view of addition of the
above proviso to Rule 2(2)(g) of Order
XXXIX, no injunction can be granted in
respect of proceedings for recovery of
dues which are recoverable as arrears of
land revenue unless adequate security is
furnished.

7. The recovery of loan in the
present case is by way of land revenue
and the petitioner had not furnished or
offered to furnish any security. Therefore,
he is not entitle to any injunction.

8. Secondly, the jurisdiction under
Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of
India can not be exercised like an
appellate authority by indulging in reappreciation of evidence to correct errors
of fact or law. It is exercisable only to
correct jurisdictional errors if the courts
below have acted without jurisdiction or
in flagrant violation of the principles of
natural justice or where there is manifest
or patent error apparent on the face of
record.

9. In view of the above the writ
petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

10. It will, however, be open to the
petitioner to approach the bank for
mutual settlement or to furnish adequate
2 All] Amir Ahmad V. Additional Commissioner and others
895
security and apply afresh for interim
injunction.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.07.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27717 of 1995

Amir Ahmad

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Additional Commissioner and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri K.G.Srivastava
Sri Amaresh Sinha
Sri Dinesh Pathak
Sri Mohd. Farooq
Sri S.T. Ali
Usha Kiran
Sri Preetam Lal

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holdings Act, Section 3(8)-surplus land-
.grove land-consisting 22 trees existed
prior 1974-can not be ceased to grove if
same part utilized for cattle fodder-other
ground for denying the will-delay about
11 years in mutation-also unfounded-if
the
exertion
and
attestation
not
questioned-delay in mutation can not be
basis to ignore the will-order quashed.

Held: Para 14 and 17

 It is only on the ground of an alleged
delayed mutation proceeding that the
Will
has
been
discarded
by
the
Prescribed Authority. In the opinion of
the Court merely because proceedings
for recording the name took 11 years will
not defeat the devolution of interest
under the Will so long as the Will is not
stated to be either fake or forged. In the
absence of any such finding neither the
Prescribed Authority nor the Appellate
Authority could have discarded the said
Will more so when the appellate order
dated
17.5.1988
and
19.2.1991
specifically issued a direction to exclude
the land under the Will.

As to what should be the criteria to
judge the status of a holding as grove,
reference can be had to the definition of
a grove as contained in Section 3(6) of
the
U.P.
Tenancy
Act,
1939.
The
definition is similar, in so far as this
feature is concerned, to Section 3(8) of
the 1960 Ceiling Act. The same was
considered by a learned Single Judge of
this Court in the case of Shiv Sahai &
others Vs. Har Nandan & others reported
in 1963 RD Pg. 119 where it was held
that the existence of fourteen trees in an
acre of land was sufficient to construe a
grove. In the present case there are 22
trees which were found to be existing
prior to the appointed date aged about
25 to 30 years and some newly planted
trees aged about four to five years
spread over an area of approximately
one hectare. Thus even if some of the
trees are sparsely located, the same
would not change the nature of the
holdings.
Case law discussed:
1978 AWC 205; 1978 AWC Page 574; 1963 RD
199

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap
Sahi, J.)

1. Heard Shri Preetam Lal holding
brief of Shri Dinesh Pathak, learned counsel
for the petitioner and the learned Standing
Counsel for the contesting respondents.

2. This writ petition arises out of
proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. The
petitioner was put to notice and the ceiling
proceedings
were
concluded
by
the