# Jalal Ahmad v. The State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2004) 1 ILRA 234
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2004-01-12
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 329 of 1998
- **Bench:** M. Katju, Mrs. Poonam Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jalal-ahmad-v-the-state-of-u-p-and-others-40329
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India-Article 226- Writ
Jurisdiction-scope-Judicial
review
of
administrative
decision-Interference
only
in
case
of
arbitrariness-No
interference with finding of fact-Writ lies
where there is error of law apparent on
face of record.

Held: Paras 4,5 & 6

It is well settled that a writ lies when
there is error of law apparent on the face
of the record. In writ jurisdiction this
Court cannot interfere with findings of
fact. Whether there was corruption or
favouritism was a question of fact and
the learned Single Judge should not have
interfered with the findings of fact in this
connection.

The Court cannot sit in appeal over
administrative decisions. It can only
interfere when there is arbitrariness in
the Wednesbury sense. The modern
trend points to judicial restraint with
respect to administrative decisions.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Jalal Ahmad V. The State of U.P. and others 235
Case law discussed:
JT 1996 (6) SC 515
JT 1996 (8) SC 510
2000 (1) AWC 726
AIR 1996 SC 11
W.P.52499 of 2002, decided on 11.12.2003

## Text

234 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
The
Registrar
General
shall
also
communicate copy of this order to all
Presidents and Secretaries of District Bar
Associations in the State, and to the
Chairman, U.P. Bar Council.

9. We warn all the officers of the
subordinate judiciary that disciplinary
action shall be taken against those Judges
who are avoiding expeditious disposal of
cases, and who grant adjournments lightly
and unnecessarily. The public is fed up
with the delays in deciding cases, and will
not tolerate continuation of this state of
affairs.

10. We further direct that judicial
officers shall not adjourn cases merely
because the lawyers are abstaining from
work or are on strike. The Supreme Court
has held that it is illegal for lawyers to go
on strike, vide Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal
v. Union of India, (2003) 2 SCC 45.
We therefore direct that judges in the
subordinate judiciary will pass orders in
the cases fixed before them even in the
absence of lawyers (unless the case has
been adjourned by the Court for some
good and strong reason on a lawyers
application), and if the lawyers obstruct
the functioning of the Court the District
Judge will call the police to stop this. The
people of the State are fed up of lawyers
strikes, and in our opinion, rightly so.
Enough is enough.

11. List this case again before us on
16.3.2004 by which time compliance
report shall be sent to this Court by the
District Judge, Bareilly and other District
Judges in the State. While we have
disposed off this petition it shall be listed
again before us so that we can monitor
compliance of the directions given by us.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.01.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J
THE HON'BLE MRS. POONAM SRIVASTAVA, J.

Special Appeal No. 329 of 1998

Jalal Ahmad

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri P.K. Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri B.P. Srivastava
Sri Vashistha Tiwari
Sri H.R. Mishra, S.C.
S.C.

Constitution of India-Article 226- Writ
Jurisdiction-scope-Judicial
review
of
administrative
decision-Interference
only
in
case
of
arbitrariness-No
interference with finding of fact-Writ lies
where there is error of law apparent on
face of record.

Held: Paras 4,5 & 6

It is well settled that a writ lies when
there is error of law apparent on the face
of the record. In writ jurisdiction this
Court cannot interfere with findings of
fact. Whether there was corruption or
favouritism was a question of fact and
the learned Single Judge should not have
interfered with the findings of fact in this
connection.

The Court cannot sit in appeal over
administrative decisions. It can only
interfere when there is arbitrariness in
the Wednesbury sense. The modern
trend points to judicial restraint with
respect to administrative decisions.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Jalal Ahmad V. The State of U.P. and others 235
Case law discussed:
JT 1996 (6) SC 515
JT 1996 (8) SC 510
2000 (1) AWC 726
AIR 1996 SC 11
W.P.52499 of 2002, decided on 11.12.2003

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
appellant.

2. This special appeal has been filed
against the impugned judgment of the
learned Single Judge dated 15.4.1998.
The facts of the case are that the U.P.
Government took a policy decision to
provide employment to Urdu knowing
persons by absorbing them on the post of
Urdu translators in various Departments
of the State. In the month of August,
1984, 5061 posts were sanctioned in the
various Departments of the State. It was
stipulated that one post each in all the
offices of departmental heads both at
divisional and district level were to be
filled in by such Urdu translators.

In pursuance of that policy the
District
Magistrate,
Deoria
initiated
proceedings for recruitment of Urdu
translators. The posts were advertised and
a written test was held on 25.12.1994 and
a select list of 58 candidates was
published on 12.1.1995. From that list
certain
persons
were
appointed
in
different departments, e.g. in police,
education, etc. In appears that certain
complaints of corruption and favoritism in
the selection process were made to the
State
Government
and
the
State
Government by order dated 20.06.1995
directed the District Magistrate to make
an enquiry regarding the complaints. The
District Magistrate entrusted the enquiry
to the S.D.O., Salempur, Deoria for
making enquiries. On the basis of the
enquiry report the District Magistrate
wrote a letter dated 12.7.1995 to the State
Government and on that basis the State
Government cancelled the examination on
7.8.1995.

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order
a writ petition was filed in this Court
which
allowed
by
the
impugned
judgment.

4. The learned Single Judge has
observed that there was no evidence of
corruption or favourtism. In our opinion
the learned Single Judge has erred in law
by making this observation. The learned
Single Judge while disposing off the writ
petition should not have interfered with
the findings of the fact in the enquiry
report. It is well settled that a writ lies
when there is error of law apparent on the
face of the record. In writ jurisdiction this
Court cannot interfere with findings of
fact. Whether there was corruption or
favouritism was a question of fact and the
learned Single Judge should not have
interfered with the findings of fact in this
connection.

5. We are fortified by the decisions
o the Supreme Court in Biswa Ranjan
Sahoo vs. Sushanta Kumar J.T. 1996 (6)
SC 515, Hanuman Prasad vs. Union of
India, J.T. 1996 (8) SC 510, etc. and the
Division Bench decision of this Court in
P.K. Rai vs. L.I.C. of India 2000 (1)
AWC 776. In Tata Cellular vs. Union of
India AIR 1996 SC 11 the scope of
judicial review of administrative decisions
has been considered in great detail and it
has been held that the Court cannot sit in
appeal over administrative decisions. It
can
only
interfere
when
there
is
arbitrariness in the Wednesbury sense.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
236 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
The modern trend points to judicial
restraint with respect to administrative
decisions.

6. The same view has been taken in
another division bench decision Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No. 52499 of 2002
Pushpak Jyoti vs. State of U.P. and others
decided on 11.12.2003.

7. For the reasons given above this
petition
is
allowed.
The
impugned
judgment dated 15.4.1998 is set aside.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.01.2004

BEFORE
TE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.33472 of 2002

U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. Unit
Saharanpur,
through
its
General
Manager

...Petitioner
Versus
District Judge, Saharanpur and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.K. Srivastava
Sri Y.K. Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.K. Pandey

Civil Procedure Code-O. IX R.13- Exparte
decease-setting aside of-Application for
Condonation
of
delay
restoration
application
duly
supported
with
affidavit-Medical
Certificate
showing
that officer looking after case suffered
heart attack-This fact not denied by
plaintiff-No reason to disbelieve medical
certificate-Held, Trial Court as well as
appellate Court committed gross error
law in rejecting restoration application.

Held: Para 9

The fact whether defendant's counsel
was informed was denied in the affidavit
supporting
the
delay
condonation
application. There was no reason to
disbelieve the medical certificates. The
fact that the officer looking after the
case had suffered a heart attack and
could not pursue the matter, was not
denied. In the circumstances, I find that
both the Trial Court as well as the
Appellate Court committed gross error in
law,
in
rejecting
the
restoration
application.
Case Law Discussed:
(2001) 6 SCC 176
(1998) 7 SCC 123

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.)

1. Heard Sri R.K. Srivastava for
petitioner and Sri S.K. Pandey for
respondents.

2. This writ petition arises out of
orders passed by Additional Civil Judge
(Junior Division) Saharanpur in Misc.
Case No. 4A/2000 rejecting petitioner's
application to set aside ex parte decree
dated 10.1.2000 in Original Suit No.215
of 1989 between Mukkha Vs. General
Manager, U.P. State Sugar Corporation,
Saharanpur and others; and the order of
District
Judge,
Saharanpur
dated
29.4.2002 in Misc. Civil Appeal No.39 of
2002 dismissing the appeal against the
order of the Trial Court.

3. Brief facts, giving rise to this writ
petition, are that the plaintiff filed a
Original
Suit
No.215/1989
for
dispossession of defendants from suit land
in Chak No. 136 Gata No.252. It was
alleged that the defendant forcibly entered
and started digging on 10.11.1989 and
that on 16.3.1990 they constructed 6 feet
wall, and fitted angle iron and barbed wire
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in