# Deewani Nyayalaya Karmchari Sangh & anr v. The State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2008) 3 ILRA 785
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008-08-07
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19182 of 2008
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/deewani-nyayalaya-karmchari-sangh-anr-v-the-state-of-u-p-and-others-41200
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Art.
226Entitlment of C.C.A. and H.R.A.-Class III
and
IV
employee
working
under
judgeship of Kanpur Dehat-denial of said
benefit as per employees working in
judgeship of Kanpur City-the decision of
committee as well as the decision of
Govt. based on mis reading of G.O. dated
11.6.99 and other various Govt. orders
issued from time to time-both the
786 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
judgeships are situated across the roaddecision of committee based on no
material-perverse-set
a
side-held-the
employees working under judgeship of
Kanpur Dehat-entitled for C.C.A. and
H.R.A.

Held: Para 12

The finding has been recorded without
any basis and in my view, it is a clear
misreading of G.O. dated 11.6.1999. The
Committee
has
miserably
failed
to
consider the effect and consequences in
the light of the contents of various G.Os
issued from time to time and, therefore,
has also erred in law in making or
coming to a conclusion which is ex facie
perverse and based on no material. The
view taken by the State Government also
cannot be sustained in the light of
discussion of contents of various G.Os
issued by State Government with respect
to admissibility of HRA from time to
time.

## Text

3 All] Deewani Nyayalaya Karmchari Sangh & anr. V. The State of U.P. and others
785
raise this objection he could do so before
the Labour Court to whom the reference
may be made.

4. In my opinion, the Conciliation
Officer could not adjudicate upon the
dispute as to whether demands by the
workmen are justified or not and whether
the union was competent to raise the
dispute
or
the
workman
himself
individually are missed questions of facts
and law. These can be decided only on
basis of evidence which may be adduced
by the parties.

5. Reference order is based on
subjective satisfaction of the appropriate
Government. Such subjective satisfaction
relating to factual existence of dispute or
its apprehension and expediency of
making reference is not justifiable as the
appropriate Government has no power or
judicial review. The order of reference is
only an administrative function. The
authority for making a reference to
Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal by the
appropriate Government is derived from
the key used in Section 4K of the U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 that any
industrial
dispute
exists
or
is
apprehended.
Once
the
conciliation
proceeding is moved for settlement of any
dispute then such dispute prima facie
comes into existence and is apprehended.
An administrative order of refusal to refer
a dispute cannot destroy or destruct the
right of an aggrieved party to establish
before the Labour Court that what has
been referred in fact is an industrial
dispute. After existence of dispute the
appropriate Government can only prima
facie has to satisfy that what is being
referred is not a frivolous or state dispute
and it can not be permitted to delve into
merits of any industrial dispute raised by
the aggrieved party. All these questions
can be decided by the Labour Court. The
petitioner may raise all these questions
before the Labour Court for adjudication.

6. For the reasons stated above, the
writ petition is allowed and the impugned
order dated 7.10.2005 is quashed. The
respondents are directed to consider the
matter of reference afresh within 15 days
from the date of production of a certified
copy of this order.

7. No order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.08.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19182 of 2008

Deevani Nyayalaya Karmchari Sangh and
another

 ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of U.P. & others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Radha Kant Ojha
Sri Arun Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Amit Sthalekar
Sri Yashwant Verma
Sri Vivek Srivastava
S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Art.
226Entitlment of C.C.A. and H.R.A.-Class III
and
IV
employee
working
under
judgeship of Kanpur Dehat-denial of said
benefit as per employees working in
judgeship of Kanpur City-the decision of
committee as well as the decision of
Govt. based on mis reading of G.O. dated
11.6.99 and other various Govt. orders
issued from time to time-both the
786 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
judgeships are situated across the roaddecision of committee based on no
material-perverse-set
a
side-held-the
employees working under judgeship of
Kanpur Dehat-entitled for C.C.A. and
H.R.A.

Held: Para 12

The finding has been recorded without
any basis and in my view, it is a clear
misreading of G.O. dated 11.6.1999. The
Committee
has
miserably
failed
to
consider the effect and consequences in
the light of the contents of various G.Os
issued from time to time and, therefore,
has also erred in law in making or
coming to a conclusion which is ex facie
perverse and based on no material. The
view taken by the State Government also
cannot be sustained in the light of
discussion of contents of various G.Os
issued by State Government with respect
to admissibility of HRA from time to
time.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Radha Kant Ojha for
the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel
for respondent no.1 and Sri Amit
Sthalekar for respondents no.2 and 3.
With the agreement of learned counsel for
the parties, the writ petition has been
heard finally under the Rules of the Court
at this stage and is being decided.

2. An association namely, Dewwani
Karmchari Sangh U.P., Kanpur Dehat
through its President has filed this writ
petition challenging the order dated
1.4.2008, passed by District Judge,
Kanpur Dehat and dated 22.2.2008 issued
by the State Government whereby it has
held that employees of Judgeship Kanpur
Dehat are not entitled for any City
Compensatory
Allowance
(in
short
'CCA') and House Rent Allowance (in
short 'HRA') at the rate admissible at
Kanpur Nagar.

3. Brief facts giving rise to the
present writ petition are as under:

4. Sometimes in the year 1985 a new
Judgeship "Kanpur Dehat" was created by
carving out certain areas from Kanpur and
Kanpur itself was renamed as "Kanpur
Nagar". Due to lack of infrastructure etc.
in Kanpur Dehat, District Judgeship was
actually extablished in Kanpur Nagar, that
too in the vicinity of the Judgeship of
Kanpur Nagar and since then it is
continuously functioning there. Both the
Judgeships are across the road in Kanpur
Nagar. Employees of Judgeship Kanpur
Dehat are actually residing in nearby
areas in Kanpur Nagar.

5. The facility of HRA and CCA has
been
extended
to
the
Government
employees through various Government
Orders (In short 'G.O.'). Government
Order dated 15.12.1981 (Annexure 6 to
the writ petition) provides that HRA shall
be paid to all such government servants
who are posted in cities mentioned in
Annexure-1 within their municipal limits
or within 8 Km. of distance outside the
municipal
limits.
Consequently,
the
employees of District Judgeship Kanpur
Dehat were also paid H.R.A. under the
G.O. dated 15.12.1981. Similarly, they
were also paid CCA admissible at Kanpur
Nagar
in
accordance
with
relevant
Government
Orders.
However,
one
Additional District Judge posted in
Kanpur Dehat Judgeship who was not
paid CCA at the rates admissible in
Kanpur Nagar sent a representation to the
State Government claiming C.C.A. at the
rate admissible at Kanpur Nagar. The
same
was
declined
by
the
State
3 All] Deewani Nyayalaya Karmchari Sangh & anr. V. The State of U.P. and others
787
Government vide order dated 22.2.2008
holding
that
Government
employees
posted in Kanpur Dehat are not entitled
for CCA. In the light of the said decision
of the Government, the District Judge
constituted a committee of four Judicial
Officers which submitted its report on
28.3.2008 holding that neither C.C.A. is
payable to Class III and Class IV
employees of District Judgeship of
Kanpur Dehat nor they are entitled to
H.R.A. at the rate admissible at Kanpur
Nagar and further the amount already paid
under the two heads to such employees is
liable to be recovered. The said report in
respect of CCA and HRA was has been
accepted by District Judge vide order
dated 1.4.2008 although on some other
aspects he has required some clarification
from the committee. The petitioners are
aggrieved by the decision of District
Judge denying CCA and HRA as
admissible at Kanpur Nagar and recovery
thereof.

6. Sri Ojha learned counsel for the
petitioner vehemently contended that
since District Judgeship, Kanpur Dehat is
functioning at Kanpur Nagar itself, mere
nomenclature of the judgeship would not
render
the
petitioners
ineligible
or
disentitle for CCA and HRA at the rates
admissible for the place where the
petitioners are actually working. He
further submitted that the decision taken
by the Committee is wholly erroneous,
and on account of misreading of various
G.O., therefore, the impugned orders are
illegal and liable to be set aside.

7. Sri Amit Sthalekar, learned
counsel for respondents no.2 and 3
submitted that in view of the decision
taken by the State Government that
employees
posted
in
the
District
Judgeship of Kanpur Dehat are not
entitled for CCA or HRA admissible to
employees of Kanpur City, the matter was
examined by the District Judge and in
view of the report submitted by the
Committee constituted by him, it was
found that the petitioners are not entitled
to HRA and CCA admissible to Kanpur
Nagar. He thus submitted that for reasons
stated in the report of the Committee
which is on record as Annexure 3 to the
writ petition, the petitioners are not
entitled to any relief and writ petition is
liable to be dismissed. The learned
Standing Counsel also adopted the same
arguments.

8. The short questions required to be
answered in this case are:

1. Whether the petitioners can be
denied HRA at the rate admissible to the
employees working at Kanpur Nagar
merely on the ground that they are posted
in a Judgeship which has been created for
the area outside Kanpur Nagar and is
known as Kanpur Dehat ?
2. Whether various G.Os. providing for
HRA have rightly been interpreted by
respondent no.4 ?
3. Whether the petitioners are not
entitled for CCA though as a matter of
fact their office in which they are posted
is situated at Kanpur Nagar and they are
all working and residing in Kanpur Nagar
or nearby area within 8 km of municipal
limits ?

9. To answer the above questions
this Court proposes first to deal with the
issue pertaining to HRA.

10. Questions no.1 and 2 pertaining
to HRA can be considered and answered
together. Entitlement for H.R.A. was
788 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
made admissible by State Government
pursuant to recommendation of U.P.
Second Pay Commission accepted by the
Government
vide
resolution
dated
29.9.1981 and in furtherance thereof G.O.
No. G-1-1745/X-81, Vitta (Sa.Anu-1)
dated 15.12.1981 was issued. Para 1 of
the said G.O. provides that as per the
decision of the Governor all employees
under the rule framing authority of the
Government other than those working on
work charge or contingency paid fund,
shall be entitled for H.R.A. if their place
of working is situated within municipal
limits of cities contained in Schedule-I or
outside the said municipal limits but
within 8 km. thereof. In subsequent
paragraphs certain other conditions as
well as rates of HRA etc. was provided.
The aforesaid G.O. was sought to be
clarified by G.O. No. Vitta(Samanya)
Anubhag-1 No. G.-1-2569/X-83/209/81
dated 28th February 1984 with respect to
question of admissibility of HRA to
husband and wife who are in employment
of the Government and are residing in the
same house and the manner in which
HRA would be admissible. The G.O.
dated
28.2.1984
was
rescinded
by
subsequent G.O. No.G-1-1887/X-209/81Vitta (Sa) Anu.-1, dated 29.10.1984.
Besides it, some other amendments were
made vide G.Os. dated 15.12.1981,
29.12.1981,
14.3.1983,
28.1.
1985,
2.3.1987 and 9.7.1987. Thereafter again
on the recommendation of U.P. Third Pay
Commission, accepted by the State
Government vide its resolution dated
14.8.1988 rates of HRA were revised vide
G.O. dated 19.9.1988 but in para 7 thereof
it was stated that in respect to other terms
and conditions various G.Os. earlier
issued shall continue to be in force. Partial
amendment in the rate of HRA in G.O.
dated 19.9.1988 was made by G.O. Dated
26.10.1988. It was also provided that the
employees who are appointed and posted
outside the State of U.P. shall be entitled
for HRA at the same rate as prescribed by
Government of India to its employees of
equal status. Another clarification was
issued by G.O. dated 28.2.1989 as to
whether HRA would be payable to
employees posted in the offices situated
outside Municipal limits of city but within
8km. thereof and it was clarified that in
such a case also HRA at the rate
admissible in the said city shall be
payable. The employees who were
working and posted in rural area, for
them, rates of HRA were modified by
G.O. dated 24.7.1992 which made partial
amendment in the earlier G.O. dated
22.9.1988 issued for providing rates of
HRA in rural area. Pursuant to the Fourth
Pay
Commission's
recommendation,
1998, which were made effective w.e.f.
1.1.1996, rates of HRA were again
revised vide G.O. dated 11.6.1999,
making amendment in earlier G.O. dated
24.7.1992 but nowhere it superseded or
rescinded the initial Government Order
dated 15.12.1981 which lays down
conditions for entitlement of HRA, and,
mainly the changes made by G.O. dated
11.6.1999 were in respect to rates. Some
partial amendments were further made
vide G.O. dated 11.6.1999 and dated
6.12.1999. Again a clarification was made
by G.O. dated 25.2.2000 referring to G.O.
dated 15.12.1981 and 11.6.1999 and
stating that irrespective of the fact as to
where a Government servant is residing,
he would be entitled for HRA if his
office, i.e., place of working is situated in
the Municipal Limits of the city or within
8 km. thereof. It would be relevant to
quote the clarification given by G.O.
dated 25.2.2000:
3 All] Deewani Nyayalaya Karmchari Sangh & anr. V. The State of U.P. and others
789
"1.Shasnadesh
Sankhya
G-11795/Dus-81,
209-81
Dinank
15
December, 1981 Me Yeh Pravidhan Hai
Ki Makan Kiraya Bhatta Sambandhit
Nagar Ki Arhkari Seema Ke Bahar 8
Kilometer Ki Doori Tak Sthit Karyalayon
Me Karyarat Sarkari Sewakon Ko Deya
Hoga Chahe Sambandhit Sarkari Sewak
Kahin Bhi Niwas Karta Ho. 8 Kilometer
Ki Doori Sab Se Kam Doori Wale Marg
Se Naapi Jayegi Aur Iski Pushti Poorva
Ki Bhanti Ziladhikari Se Karani Avashyak
Hogi.
Shasnadesh
Sankhya
G-11887/Das-209-81, Dinank 29 October
1984 Me Yah Bhi Vyavastha Ki Gayi Thi
Ki Makan Kiraya Bhatta Prakhyapit
Nagapalikaon Se Sanlagna Sthaniya
Nikayon Ki Poori Seema Me Purvavat
Milta Rahega, Kintu Ukt Sanlagna
Sthaniya
Nikayon
Ke
Bahar
Sthit
Karyalayon Se Doori Makan Kiraya
Bhatta Ke Liye Mool Nagarpalika Ki
Seema Se Hi Naapi Jayegi., Sanlagna
Sthaniya Nikay Ki Seema Se Nahi.
"2. Is Sambandh Me Mujhe Yeh
Kahne Ka Nirdesh Hua Hai Ki Uprokt
Vyavastha Shasnadesh Sankhya G-1373/Dus-99-205-99, Dinank 11 June,
1999 Evam Shasnadesh Sankhya G-1526/Das-205-99, Dinank 22 July, 1999
Dwara Sanshodhit Makan Kiraya Bhatta
Ki Daron Ke Sandarbh Me Bhi Lagu
Rahegi."
(English translation):

"1. It is provided in Government
Order No. G-1-1795/Das-81, 209-81
Dinank 15 December, 1981 that house
rent allowance shall be payable to
Government Servants working in offices
situated
within
8
km.
outside
the
municipal limits irrespective of place of
residence
of
Government
servant.
Distance of 8 km. shall be measured from
the shortest route and its approval must
be made by the District Magistrate as was
being done in past. It was also provided
in Government Order No. G-1-1887/Dus209-81, Dinank 29 October 1984 that
house rent allowance shall be continued
to be given to employees working in the
entire limits of local bodies attached to
notified
municipalities,
but
for
the
purpose of HRA, measurement of distance
of offices of local bodies situated outside
their limits shall be made from the
original limit of municipality and not from
local body's limits."
"2. In this connection, I am also
directed to say that the aforesaid
provision shall be applicable to the rates
of house rent allowance amended vide
Government Orders No. G-1-373/Dus-99205-99, dated 11 June, 1999 and G-1526/Dus-205-99, dated 22 July, 1999"

11. Rates of HRA set out vide G.O.
Dated 4.6.1999 were again modified in
respect to certain areas vide G.O. dated
16.4.2001.

12. A conjoint reading of all the
above
G.Os
make
it
very
clear,
particularly the G.O. Dated make it very
clear,
particularly
the
G.O.
dated
25.2.2000 that the G.O. dated 15.12.1981
as such has not been rescinded or revoked
by G.O. dated 11.6.1999 and any other
previous or later G.O. The only changes
made by G.O. dated 11.6.1999 was in
respect to rates of HRA in different areas
and other things contained therein but in
respect to rest of the matters where no
specific provisions were made by the
G.O. dated 11.6.1999, the provisions of
G.O. dated 15.12.1981 laying down
conditions with respect to admissibility of
HRA had continued to operate and that
has been reiterated in G.O. dated
25.2.2000 while clarifying certain aspects
790 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
of the matter as discussed above. This
Court could not find out any reason in the
entire report of the Committee appointed
by District Judge as to how and in what
manner they came to the conclusion that
the G.O. dated 11.6.1999 has resulted in
repealing G.O. dated 15.12.1981. The
finding has been recorded without any
basis and in my view, it is a clear
misreading of G.O. dated 11.6.1999. The
Committee
has
miserably
failed
to
consider the effect and consequences in
the light of the contents of various G.Os
issued from time to time and, therefore,
has also erred in law in making or coming
to a conclusion which is ex facie perverse
and based on no material. The view taken
by the State Government also cannot be
sustained in the light of discussion of
contents of various G.Os issued by State
Government with respect to admissibility
of HRA from time to time.

13. The matter of HRA can be
considered from another angle also. If
place of working would have actually
situated in rural area, not covered by
provision of Government Order dated
15.12.1981, obviously an employee if
residing in a city could not have claimed
HRA at the rate admissible in city. But
where the office has been created at a
different place but as a matter of fact has
been established in a different city and is
actually working and functioning in that
city, then how and why HRA admissible
in that city would not be admissible to the
employee(s)
posted
in
that
office,
particularly when none of the G.Os
disentitles them in such a contingency for
payment of HRA. Learned counsel
appearing for the respondents also could
not show or bring anything to the notice
of this Court for taking a different view.
Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding
that learned District Judge has also erred
in law in mechanically accepting the
decision of the Committee in the light of
the decision of the State Government as
communicated by letter dated 22.2.2008
and therefore, with respect to payment of
HRA the impugned orders cannot sustain
and are liable to be quashed. Questions
no.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

14. Now I proceed to consider
question with respect to CCA in the light
of various G.Os whereunder the same is
admissible. The provision made for CCA
also stand on the same footing as we have
found the things exist with respect to
HRA. Starting from initial G.O. No. G-1871/Dus-87-209-81 T.C. dated 9.7.1981
and subsequent G.Os No. G-1-422/Dus207-81 dated 11.3.1982, G-1-603/Dus-86209/86
dated
15.4.1986
and
G-11166/Dus-262/88 dated 17.9.1988, it is
evident that CCA was made admissible to
Government
employees
who
were
working in the cities mentioned in the
said G.Os. Various G.Os issued from time
to time only made difference either in the
rate of CCA admissible in various cities
mentioned in the G.Os. or included or
excluded name of a particular city/cities
for admissibility of CCA under the
aforesaid G.Os. It is not that the very
basis with respect to admissibility of CCA
at any point of time has been altered. The
G.O. Which has been considered by the
Committee in order to deny CCA to the
petitioners with effect from 10.6.1999 is
G.O. No. G-1-375/Dus-99-203-99 dated
10.6.1999 which made amendment in the
preceding
G.Os
No.
G-1-1166/Dus262/88 dated 17.9.1988 and G-1-977/Dus262/88 dated 16.8.1993. The Committee
has inferred that the aforesaid G.O. dated
10.6.1999 has the effect of rescinding
earlier G.Os and, therefore, the petitioners
3 All] Deewani Nyayalaya Karmchari Sangh & anr. V. The State of U.P. and others
791
were
not
entitled
to
CCA
w.e.f.
10.6.1999. The Court finds that the
inference drawn by the Committee is
clearly erroneous and is a result of
misreading of the said Government Order.

15. First I propose to consider the
G.O.
dated
17.9.1988
which
after
referring
to
G.Os.
dated
9.7.1981,
11.3.1982,
24.5.1983
and
15.4.1986
provided
that
accepting
the
recommendations of Pay Commission,
U.P., 1987, the Government has decided
vide its resolution dated 14.8.1986 to
provide revised rate of CCA w.e.f.
1.1.1986 to the Government employees
working in Kanpur, Agra, Allahabad,
Lucknow, Varanasi, Meerut, Bareilly,
Gorakhpur, Moradabad and Aligarh and
the aforesaid revised rate of CCA was
made admissible w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The
G.O. dated 10.6.1999 has been issued
pursuant to the recommendations of Pay
Commission, U.P. 1998 and decision of
the Government to implement the same
and in furtherance thereof it has revised
the rate of CCA as well as made certain
amendments with respect to admissibility
of CCA in the cities of Kanpur, Lucknow,
Varanasi, Bareilly, Meerut, Ghaziabad,
Gorakhpur, Agra and Allahabad. Revised
rate of CCA in the aforesaid cities has
been provided w.e.f. 1.6.1999. G.Os dated
17.9.1988 and 16.8.1993 have been
amended only to certain extent as
provided in the G.O. dated 10.6.1999 but
it has not rescinded or revoked the earlier
G.Os in entirety. Revision has been made
effective from 1.6.1999. The difference
between G.O. dated 17.9.1988 and
10.6.1999, besides rate of CCA, is that
city Aligarh has not been included in the
G.O. dated 10.6.1999 and, therefore, as
per the revised G.O. the said rate of CCA
is not admissible to the Government
servant working at Aligarh. This is the
only distinction in various G.Os and the
Court did not find anywhere suggesting or
even having any iota of indication that the
earlier G.Os stand revoked and word
'working' in the cities mentioned in the
said G.Os has been altered with the word
'posted' . The petitioners are posted in
Judgeship Kanpur Dehat but admittedly,
since the establishment of Kanpur Dehat
Judgeship, its headquarters is at Kanpur
Nagar itself, the employees of Kanpur
Dehat Judgeship cannot be said to be
working at a place other than Kanpur
Nagar. The G.O. dated 10.6.1999 has
been
amended
vide
G.O.
No.
G1/890/Dus-99-203/99
dated
6.12.1999
adding "Gautam Budh Nagar" in the
column of Kanpur, and in the column of
cities
Bareilly,
Meerut,
Ghaziabad,
Gorakhpur, Agra and Allahabad, two
cities--"Moradabad and Aligarh" have
also been included. Now presently by
G.O.
No.
G-1-258/Dus-2001-203-99
dated 16.4.2001, the rate of CCA
admissible to Lucknow has been changed
and equated with Kanpur by placing in
the same column in which Kanpur is
placed and this has been made effective
from 1.4.2001. No substantial difference
in respect to the word 'working' which
makes CCA admissible has been made so
far and none has been shown to the Court
by the respondents.

16. Learned counsel for the
respondents could not place before the
Court that though the employees are
working in the cities in which CCA is
admissible under the aforesaid G.Os, yet
it is not payable in the office in which
they are functioning or established in the
cities mentioned in G.Os. They failed to
show that the petitioners would not be
entitled to CCA at the rate admissible in
792 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
the cities provided in the aforementioned
G.Os where they are in fact 'working'.

17. I, therefore, have no hesitation in
holding that denial of CCA and HRA at
the rate admissible at Kanpur Nagar to the
petitioners is clearly erroneous, illegal and
arbitrary and is not consistent with
various G.Os, under which the aforesaid
two
allowances
are
admissible
as
discussed above.

18. The writ petition is accordingly
allowed. The petitioners shall be entitled
to HRA and CCA at the rate admissible at
Kanpur Nagar so long as Judgeship of
Kanpur Dehat is functioning at Kanpur
Nagar. The impugned orders dated
1.4.2008, passed by District Judge,
Kanpur Dehat and dated 22.2.2008 issued
by the State Government are accordingly
quashed. The petitioners shall be entitled
to costs which is quantified at Rs.2000/-.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.08.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VIJAY KUMAR VERMA, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 14172 of
2004
And
Criminal Misc. Application No. 59 of 2005

Ramapati Mishra

...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri P.N. Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri H.K. Shukla
A.G.A.

Code
of
Criminal
Procedure-482Quashing
of
complaint
case-offence
under Sections 417, 467, 471, 504 I.P.C.-
dispute personal in nature-settled out of
the Court-no reason to disbelief the facts
stated in Counter affidavit-held-if the
proceeding allowed to continue-amount
to abuse the process of Court-proceeding
of complaint Case Quashed.

Held: Para 6

Having regard to the observations made
in the rulings mentioned herein-above, I
am of the opinion that it would be an
abuse of the process of the Court, if the
criminal
proceedings
against
the
applicants is allowed to continue, as the
dispute was of personal nature, which
has been settled out side the court by
means of compromise. Therefore, to do
the complete justice, the proceedings of
Complaint Case No. 1422 of 2003 may be
quashed by this Court in its inherent
jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C.
Case law discussed:
(2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675, [2006(30)
JIC 135 (Alld)], 2005 (51) ACC 21, 2007 (59)
ACC 123. 2007 (59) ACC 148, 2007 (57) ACC
981

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vijay Kumar Verma, J.)

By means of these applications under
section 482 of the code of Criminal
Procedure (in short the 'Cr.P.C.'), the
applicants Ramapati Mishra and Deena
Nath
have
invoked
the
inherent
jurisdiction of this Court, praying for
quashing of the proceedings of Complaint
Case No. 1422 of 2003 (Raj Kumar vs.
Deena Nath & others), pending in the
court
of
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate Gyanpur (Bhadohi).

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the
facts leading to the filing of the
applications under section 482 Cr.P.C., in
both these cases are that Raj Kumar