# Jitendra Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 9 ILRA 1470
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-09-18
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 14235 of 2023
- **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf, Manjive Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jitendra-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52560
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950 -
Article 226 - cancellation of selection of
the petitioner as Member of the District
9 All. Jitendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1471
Consumer Commission-under challenge-
Rule 5(5) of the Consumer Protection
(Qualification for appointment, method of
recruitment, procedure of appointment,
term of office, resignation and removal of
the President and members of the St.
Commission
and
District
Commission)
Rules, 2020- cancellation order lacked
valid reasoning, as the political affiliation
did not constitute a disqualification under
the specified rules- reasons provided in a
counter affidavit cannot substitute for
those
absent
in
the
original
ordercancellation
order
quashed-petition
allowed. (Paras 4 and 5)

HELD:
In the counter affidavit, the ground for
cancellation of the selection of the petitioner is
that the petitioner was an office bearer of a
political party, and therefore, his working as a
Member of the District Consumer Commission
would be prejudiced. It is to be noted that in
the impugned order, no reason whatsoever was
provided and this explanation has been provided
only in the counter affidavit. Supplanting of
reason by way of a counter affidavit cannot be a
substitute for having providing reasons in the
main order itself. (see: Mohinder Singh Gill &
another vs The Chief Election Commissioner,
New Delhi & ors., reported in 1978 (1) SCC
405). (Para 4)

In any event, we find that the reason provided
in the counter affidavit is flimsy and does not
fall in any of the clauses for disqualification as
prescribed in Rule 5 of the Rules. The petitioner
has himself informed to this Court that if he was
appointed as a Member of the District Consumer
Commission, he would have given resignation
from the post that he was holding. Under such
circumstances, we find that the impugned order
is without any merit and deserves to be
quashed and set-aside. (Para 5)

Petition allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

Mohinder Singh Gill & another vs The Chief
Election Commissioner, New Delhi & ors.,
reported in 1978 (1) SCC 405

## Text

1470 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the
Ministry
of
External
Affairs,
Government of India, New Delhi (referred
above) while passing the impugned order
for grant permission for renewal/re-issue of
passport, thus, the impugned order is not
sustainable in the eyes of law, therefore, the
same is liable to be set aside/reversed.

10. In view of above, in the light of
the notification dated 25.08.1993 and the
Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 as
well as the judgment passed by Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in the case of Maneka
Gandhi (Supra) and considering the larger
mandate of the Article 19 and 21 of the
Constitution of India, the impugned order
dated
08.08.2024
passed
by
learned
Additional Civil Judge/Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Court No.24, Lucknow
is hereby set aside and reversed.

11. Accordingly, the instant writ
petition
is
allowed
with
following
directions:

(i) The petitioner shall move a
fresh application along with certified copy
of this order for renewal/re-issue of his
passport before the Regional Passport
Officer, Lucknow within 20 days from the
date of this order.

(ii) In case such application is
moved by the petitioner, within the time
stipulated by this Court, the concerned
Regional Passport Officer/authority shall
decide the application and pass an order for
renewal/re-issue of the passport of the
applicant within 01 month from the date of
production of certified copy of this order,
after completing the due formalities in
accordance with law.

(iii) If the passport is renewed/reissued to the petitioner, he shall inform and
take permission from the trial court
concerned before going abroad and he shall
appear before the trial Court on the date
fixed as directed by the trial Court and he
shall be bound by the terms and conditions
imposed by the trial court, if any.

(iv) The trial Court, if grants
permission to the petitioner to go abroad,
may impose condition in accordance with
law, during the pendency of the case
pending before it.

(v) The petitioner is also directed
to submit the copy of the trial court's order,
if any, condition imposed by the trial court
regarding permission to go abroad, before
the Regional Passport Officer, Lucknow.

(vi) Let a copy of this order be
given to Sri Surya Bhan Pandey, learned
Sr. Advocate and Deputy Solicitor General
of India appearing for Union of India and
Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A.-I
for
the
State
for
information
and
communication
to
the
authorities
concerned.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 1470
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

Writ C No. 14235 of 2023

Jitendra Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Satyaveer Singh, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950 -
Article 226 - cancellation of selection of
the petitioner as Member of the District
9 All. Jitendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1471
Consumer Commission-under challenge-
Rule 5(5) of the Consumer Protection
(Qualification for appointment, method of
recruitment, procedure of appointment,
term of office, resignation and removal of
the President and members of the St.
Commission
and
District
Commission)
Rules, 2020- cancellation order lacked
valid reasoning, as the political affiliation
did not constitute a disqualification under
the specified rules- reasons provided in a
counter affidavit cannot substitute for
those
absent
in
the
original
ordercancellation
order
quashed-petition
allowed. (Paras 4 and 5)

HELD:
In the counter affidavit, the ground for
cancellation of the selection of the petitioner is
that the petitioner was an office bearer of a
political party, and therefore, his working as a
Member of the District Consumer Commission
would be prejudiced. It is to be noted that in
the impugned order, no reason whatsoever was
provided and this explanation has been provided
only in the counter affidavit. Supplanting of
reason by way of a counter affidavit cannot be a
substitute for having providing reasons in the
main order itself. (see: Mohinder Singh Gill &
another vs The Chief Election Commissioner,
New Delhi & ors., reported in 1978 (1) SCC
405). (Para 4)

In any event, we find that the reason provided
in the counter affidavit is flimsy and does not
fall in any of the clauses for disqualification as
prescribed in Rule 5 of the Rules. The petitioner
has himself informed to this Court that if he was
appointed as a Member of the District Consumer
Commission, he would have given resignation
from the post that he was holding. Under such
circumstances, we find that the impugned order
is without any merit and deserves to be
quashed and set-aside. (Para 5)

Petition allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

Mohinder Singh Gill & another vs The Chief
Election Commissioner, New Delhi & ors.,
reported in 1978 (1) SCC 405
(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.
&
Hon'ble Manjive Shukla, J.)

1. Heard counsel appearing on behalf
of the parties.

2. This is a writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India wherein the
writ petitioner is aggrieved by the order
dated March 1, 2023 bearing No.118/84-22023 issued by the Government of Uttar
Pradesh, Lucknow and the subsequent
communication dated March 14, 2023 with
regard to cancellation of selection of the
petitioner as Member of the District
Consumer Commission.

3. It is to be noted that the petitioner
was selected as a Member of the District
Consumer Commission along with 13 other
persons. By the impugned order dated
March 1, 2023, his selection has been
cancelled under Rule 5(5) of the Consumer
Protection (Qualification for appointment,
method of recruitment, procedure of
appointment, term of office, resignation
and removal of the President and members
of the State Commission and District
Commission) Rules, 2020 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Rules'). Rule 5 of the
Rules is extracted below:-

"5.
Disqualification
for
appointment of President or member of
State
Commission
and
District
Commission
-
A
person
shall
be
disqualified as the President or a member
of
a
State
Commission
or
District
Commission if he-

(1) has been convicted and
sentenced to imprisonment for an offence
which involves moral turpitude; or

(2) has been adjudged to be
insolvent; or
1472 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(3) is of unsound mind and stands
so declared by a competent authority; or

(4)
has
been
removed
or
dismissed from the service of the State
Government or Central Government or a
body corporate owned or controlled by
such Government; or

(5) has, in the opinion of the State
Government, such financial or other
interest as is likely to prejudicially affect
his functions as the President or a
member."

4. In the counter affidavit, the ground
for cancellation of the selection of the
petitioner is that the petitioner was an office
bearer of a political party, and therefore, his
working as a Member of the District
Consumer Commission would be prejudiced.
It is to be noted that in the impugned order,
no reason whatsoever was provided and this
explanation has been provided only in the
counter affidavit. Supplanting of reason by
way of a counter affidavit cannot be a
substitute for having providing reasons in the
main order itself. (see: Mohinder Singh Gill
&
another
vs
The
Chief
Election
Commissioner, New Delhi and others,
reported in 1978 (1) SCC 405).

5. In any event, we find that the reason
provided in the counter affidavit is flimsy and
does not fall in any of the clauses for
disqualification as prescribed in Rule 5 of the
Rules. The petitioner has himself informed to
this Court that if he was appointed as a
Member
of
the
District
Consumer
Commission,
he
would
have
given
resignation from the post that he was holding.
Under such circumstances, we find that the
impugned order is without any merit and
deserves to be quashed and set-aside.

6. Accordingly, the impugned order
dated March 1, 2023 and subsequent
communication dated March 14, 2023 are
quashed and set-aside. In the event, there is
any vacancy of the post of Member of the
District
Consumer
Commission,
the
petitioner should be appointed within eight
weeks from date.

7. The writ petition is allowed.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 1472
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

Writ Tax No. 1396 of 2024

Hcl Infotech Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner, Commercial Tax & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Atul Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Law
of
taxation
-
Constitution
of
India,1950 - Article 226 - The Central
Goods
and
Services
Tax
Act,
2017-
Section 61 -Show cause notice under
Section
74
CGST
Act,2017
under
challenge-previous
proceedings
under
Section
73
CGST
Act,2017
already
dropped-no
allegation
of
fraud
or
suppression
of
facts-
notice
lacked
jurisdiction as it did not specify any fraud,
wilful misSt.ment, or suppression of facts,
which are necessary to invoke Section 74show cause notice quashed-possibility of
fresh proceedings allowed if necessary
conditions
are
met-petition
allowed.
(Paras 19, 20, 21, 22, 25,26 and 27)

HELD: