# Jyoti alias Jannat & another v. State of U.P. and others - **Citation:** (2003) 3 ILRA 703 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2003-08-11 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21541 of 2003 - **Bench:** M. Katju, R.S. Tripathi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jyoti-alias-jannat-another-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40171 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Constitution of India, Article 14- cut of date G.O. dated 1.7.01 providing revision the pay scale w.e.f. 1992-Petitioner retired on 30.6.01-whether can claim the benefit of such G.O.? Held- 'No', recording the reason for fixing the cut of date-not necessary. Held- Para 3 Even if no reason has been given for the basis of a cut off date, the Court cannot interfere in such matters. It is for the administration to fix the cut off date and the Court should not interfere in such administrative matters as held in the aforesaid decisions. Some persons are bound to have a grievance by a cut off date, but that would not make it arbitrary, vide Dr. Ami Lal Bhat v. State of Rajasthan (supra) Case law discussed: J.T. 1991 (6) S.C. 400 2000 (3) SCC 736 http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in ## Text 3 All] Jyoti alias Jannat and another V. State of U.P. and others 703 17. On consideration of all relevant and important aspects, we find ourselves in agreement with the finding of guilt recorded by the learned trial judge against the two accused appellants. 18. Resultantly, we subscribe to the view taken by the trial judge and find no merit in these two appeals. The appellants have rightly been convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. read with section 34 I.P.C. for the murder of Bachchu Singh with sentence of life imprisonment awarded to each of them. 19. In view of the above discussion, we dismiss both these appeals No.2912 of 1980 and 2952 of 1980 and affirm the conviction of the accused appellants Shrilal and Amar Singh under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to each of them. They are on bail. They shall be arrested and lodged in jail to serve out the sentence of life imprisonment. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra shall cause them to be arrested and lodged in jail. 20. The office shall send the copy of this judgment along with the record to the lower court to ensure compliance under intimation to this Court within two months. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.08.2003 BEFORE THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J. THE HON'BLE R.S. TRIPATHI, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21541 of 2003 Jyoti alias Jannat & another...Petitioners Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri B.B. Paul Counsel for the Respondents: Sri N.S. Chahar S.C. Constitution of India-Article 21- Section 3 of Indian Majority Act 1875-a person in the age of 18 years is major, and he/she may live with any body. In a free democratic and secular country no body has any right to interfere in his/her affairs. Held- Para 2 Once a person becomes a major that person cannot be restrained from going anywhere or living with any body. Individual liberty under Article 21 has the highest place in our Constitution. (Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.) Heard counsel for the parties. 1. The petitioners as well as the mother of petitioner no. 1 have appeared before us. Petitioner No. 1 is a major as is evident from her High School Certificate filed as annexure 2 to the writ petition, which shows that her date of birth is 20.7.1984. Thus she is over 19 years of age. According to the provisions of the http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 704 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003 Indian Majority Act, 1875, a person who is 18 years of age is major vide Section 3 of the said Act. The law deems that a major understands his/her welfare, hence a major can go wherever he/she likes and live with any body. This is a free, democratic and secular country. Hence if a person is a major even parents cannot interfere with that individual. 2. The petitioners who appeared before us have stated that they are living with each other of their own free will. In the counter affidavit which has been filed it has been stated that a First Information Report has been lodged under Section 363 and 366 I.P.C. That may be so, but once a person becomes a major that person cannot be restrained from going anywhere or living with any body. Individual liberty under Article 21 has the highest place in our Constitution. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, the writ petition is allowed. A mandamus is issued to the respondents not to harass or threaten the petitioners and allow them to live peacefully with each other. The Senior Superintendent of Police Agra and Superintendent of Police Firozabad will ensure compliance of this order. 4. The petitioners have stated that they need security to go from here to Firozabad as they have apprehension about their safety. The Court Officer of this Court will contact the local police for providing security to them at Allahabad and for their journey to Firozabad. Further the petitioners shall be provided security at Firozabad, by the police authorities concerned there. 5. Let a certified copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the petitioners on payment of usual charges today itself. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.07.2003 BEFORE THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J. THE HON'BLE R.S. TRIPATHI, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31015 of 2003 Chandra Charu Mishra ...Petitioner Versus The State of U.P. & others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A.P. Tewari Sri S.S. Tripathi Counsel for the Respondents: S.C. Constitution of India, Article 14- cut of date G.O. dated 1.7.01 providing revision the pay scale w.e.f. 1992-Petitioner retired on 30.6.01-whether can claim the benefit of such G.O.? Held- 'No', recording the reason for fixing the cut of date-not necessary. Held- Para 3 Even if no reason has been given for the basis of a cut off date, the Court cannot interfere in such matters. It is for the administration to fix the cut off date and the Court should not interfere in such administrative matters as held in the aforesaid decisions. Some persons are bound to have a grievance by a cut off date, but that would not make it arbitrary, vide Dr. Ami Lal Bhat v. State of Rajasthan (supra) Case law discussed: J.T. 1991 (6) S.C. 400 2000 (3) SCC 736 http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in