# Court in Janta Machine Tools v. State - **Citation:** (2004) 1 ILRA 73 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2003-09-08 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.38686 of 2003 - **Bench:** M. Katju, Umeshwar Pandey - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/court-in-janta-machine-tools-v-state-40291 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote S.C. U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission Act, Section 18-First Removal of Difficulties Order-adhoc appointment as lecturers by committee of Management-duly approved by D.I.O.S.-subsequently protected by interim order-but later became invalid in view of Full Bench authority of Radha Raizada case-petitioner continued in service for more than 10 years-even the appointment being regular-entitled for regularisation and consequential benefits-on equaitable consideration. Held- Para 8 and 9 The net result therefore is that initial appointments of the petitioners were in accordance with law and protected by interim orders but became invalid since inception, by virtue of the aforesaid full bench authority of Radha Raizada. It is unfortunate that even after the decision of Radha Raizada petitions could not be heard for about nine years. The appointment cannot be termed as fraudulent, arbitrary or completely against the rules when made as per the view of this court prevalent at the relevant time. ## Text http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 1 All] Vijay Shanker Singh V. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad and others 73 8. It is alleged in para-22 of the petition that respondent no.2 has rejected the application for exemption overlooking the registration certificate issued by the Director of Industries in which the date of starting production has been mentioned as 9.1.1983. In para 24it is alleged that the assessing authority also observed in the assessment order for assessment year 1981-82 that production in the petitioner's unit was started in January, 1983 vide Annexure-6 to the petition. 9. Counter affidavit has been filed and we have perused the same. In para10, it is stated that the unit started its trial production on 31.5.1982. 10. In para-14 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that application under Section 4-A was rejected because the petitioner was not found to be a new unit as defined in the relevant definition in Section 4-A. Among the condition of eligibility for exemption was the condition that the unit started production on or after 1.10.1982. It is alleged that since the production was started before 1.10.1982, the petitioner was not eligible for sales tax exemption and accordingly his application was rejected. 11. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Janta Machine Tools Vs. State of U.P. and others 1989 suppl. (1) S.C.C. 281, that the trial production does not amount to the date of actual production under the Government Order dated 30th September, 1982. 12. The facts of the case are covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court in Magnum Papers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2003 U.P.T.C. 354 (vide Paragraphs 10 & 11). 13. Following the aforesaid decision, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.9.1987 is quashed and the Divisional Level Committee, Meerut is directed to grant eligibility certificate under Section 4-A to the petitioner as prayed for forthwith. Till grant of eligibility certificate the assessment proceedings for the assessment years 1983-84 to 1988-89 shall remain stayed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 8.9.2003 BEFORE THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J. THE HON'BLE UMESHWAR PANDEY, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.38686 of 2003 Vijay Shanker Singh ...Petitioner Versus Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri G.K. Singh Counsel for the Respondents: S.C. Constitution of India, Article 227-writ of mandamus-seeking direction for expeditious disposal of civil suit-10,000 to 15000 cases pending before the concerned court-held-such direction cannot be issued-suitable remedy to ameliorate the situation-by enhancing the strength of judges. (Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.) The petitioner has prayed for expeditious disposal of a suit. It is not proper for us to give any such direction in http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004 74 the matter, is that would be interfering with the powers of the District Judge. It may be mentioned that the High Court has laid down a norm, that every Judge of the subordinate Court should have at one time 300 cases pending against him. But on inquiry, we have come to know that many Judges have got 40 or 50 times or more cases pending before them. Thus, for instance, we are informed that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur has in his Court alone about 30,000 cases pending, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad has alone in his Court about 23,000 cases pending and that is also the position in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, NOIDA. A large numbers of Judges have 10,000/- or 15,000 cases pending before them. It is not possible for human being to carry such a load. Judges are not supermen, and in every case they have to apply their mind to the facts and law, which takes some time. It is for the concerned authorities to take action in the matter and provide suitable remedies to ameliorate the situation e.g. by appointing more Judges. We, therefore, dismiss this petition but we recommend to the concerned authorities to take up the matter in all seriousness before the situation goes totally out of control. Let the Registrar General of this Court send copies of the judgement forthwith to the Chief Secretary and Law Secretary, U.P. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 6.8.2003 BEFORE THE HON'BLE S.U. KHAN, J. Civil Misc. Writ petition No.12380 of 1986 Dr. Brij Lata Arora & another ...Petitioner Versus Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, I Region, Meerut & others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A.K. Sharma Counsel for the Respondents: S.C. U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission Act, Section 18-First Removal of Difficulties Order-adhoc appointment as lecturers by committee of Management-duly approved by D.I.O.S.-subsequently protected by interim order-but later became invalid in view of Full Bench authority of Radha Raizada case-petitioner continued in service for more than 10 years-even the appointment being regular-entitled for regularisation and consequential benefits-on equaitable consideration. Held- Para 8 and 9 The net result therefore is that initial appointments of the petitioners were in accordance with law and protected by interim orders but became invalid since inception, by virtue of the aforesaid full bench authority of Radha Raizada. It is unfortunate that even after the decision of Radha Raizada petitions could not be heard for about nine years. The appointment cannot be termed as fraudulent, arbitrary or completely against the rules when made as per the view of this court prevalent at the relevant time.