# Krishna Chandra Singh @ Munna Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 1 ILRA 277
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-01-24
- **Case number:** Application U/S 483 No. 453 of 2024
- **Bench:** Rajeev Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/krishna-chandra-singh-munna-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52980
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 145 & 482:- Application U/s
482 - for direction to the trial court - to decide
the pending Criminal Revision within stipulated
time to be fixed by this court - court finds that,
during pendency of application, criminal revision
in
question
has
already
been
decided,
consequently present application is become infructuous and is dismissed accordingly - Court
finds that, in the cases of Imtiyaz Ahmad Vs St.
of UP & Another, Sonu Agnihotry Vs Chandra
Shekhar & ors.& All India Judges Association &
other Vs UOI & ors.Hon'ble Apex Court directed
that endeavour should be made within five
years to increase the judge-to-population rations
in trial judiciary to 50 per million - however,
from perusal of personal affidavits filed by the
Chief Secretary as well as Principal Secretary
Law, Govt. of UP, - ration of 25 per million has
not been achieved till the year 2024 - held, -
issue is having wider impact on our judiciary
system and therefore direction issued to
creation of 9149 courts is related to interest of
public at large - registry is also directed to
registered this application as PIL as a separate
case and place it before the Hon'ble Chief
justice for appropriate direction. (Para - 10, 11,
12, 14)

Application pending as PIL. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1 All. Krishna Chandra Singh @ Munna Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
277
informant, proceedings cannot be quashed
in such cases which are against the public
at large.

16. In view of the above, entire
proceedings
of
charge
sheet
dated
18.02.2019 in Criminal Case No. 620 of
2019 under Section 295-A I.P.C., Police
Station-
Khurja
Nagar,
District-
Bulandshahr, pending in the court of
learned
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate, Khurja, Bulandshahr as well as
cognizance order dated 05.07.2019 passed
by learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate,
Khurja,
Bulandshahr,
are
hereby quashed.

17. This application is accordingly
disposed of.
---------
(2025) 1 ILRA 277
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

Application U/S 483 No. 453 of 2024

Krishna Chandra Singh @ Munna Singh
 ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Pankaj Kumar Verma, Karam Chand Yadav

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 145 & 482:- Application U/s
482 - for direction to the trial court - to decide
the pending Criminal Revision within stipulated
time to be fixed by this court - court finds that,
during pendency of application, criminal revision
in
question
has
already
been
decided,
consequently present application is become infructuous and is dismissed accordingly - Court
finds that, in the cases of Imtiyaz Ahmad Vs St.
of UP & Another, Sonu Agnihotry Vs Chandra
Shekhar & ors.& All India Judges Association &
other Vs UOI & ors.Hon'ble Apex Court directed
that endeavour should be made within five
years to increase the judge-to-population rations
in trial judiciary to 50 per million - however,
from perusal of personal affidavits filed by the
Chief Secretary as well as Principal Secretary
Law, Govt. of UP, - ration of 25 per million has
not been achieved till the year 2024 - held, -
issue is having wider impact on our judiciary
system and therefore direction issued to
creation of 9149 courts is related to interest of
public at large - registry is also directed to
registered this application as PIL as a separate
case and place it before the Hon'ble Chief
justice for appropriate direction. (Para - 10, 11,
12, 14)

Application pending as PIL. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. St. of U.P. & ors. Vs Neeraj Chaubey & ors. -
2010 (10) SCC 320,

2. Sonu Agnihotry Vs Chandra Shekhar & ors. -
2024 SCC online SC 3382,

3. All India Judges Association & ors.Vs U.O.I. &
ors. - 2002 (4) SCC 247,

4. Imtiyaz Ahmad Vs St. of UP & anr. - Misc.
Application No. 2362-2370/2019 in Criminal
Appeal No. 254-262 / 2012.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajeev Singh, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant and Shri Kuldeep Pati Tripathi,
learned
Additional
Advocate
General
assisted by Shri Rao Narendra Singh,
learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present application has been
filed with the prayer to direct respondent
no. 2, I Additional Session Judge, Bahraich
278 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to decide Criminal Revision No. 132 of
2010 (Ramendra Singh & Ors. Vs. Jai Raj
Singh & Ors.) within stipulated time to be
fixed by this Court.

3. Insofar as the prayer sought in the
present application is concerned, it is
informed that Criminal Revision No. 132 of
2010 (supra) has already been decided by
the
court
below
vide
order
dated
23.07.2024 and, therefore, the application
has become infructuous and is dismissed,
accordingly.

4. However, looking to the genesis of
the
present
matter,
this
Court
on
08.07.2024 passed the following order :

"Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Verma,
learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Vinod Kumar Sahi, learned Additional
Advocate General, who was called upon by
this Court, assisted by Sri S.P. Tiwari,
learned AGA for the State of U.P. as well
as perused the record.

By means of this application, the
applicant, who at present is aged about 51
years, has prayed for the following main
relief:-

"Direct to the Opposite party no.
2 (Ist Additional Session Judge District
Bahraich) to decide the criminal revision
bearing no. 132/2010 (Ramendra Singh and
others Versus Jai Raj Singh and others)
which is pending before Opposite party no.
2 since 2010 within stipulated time as fixed
by the Hon'ble Court in the interest of
justice. 1."

It appears from the record that in
the proceedings initiated under Section 145
Cr.P.C. bearing Case No. 37/57/106, an
order was passed in favour of the applicant
on 16.03.2010 by the Pargana Adhikari,
Kaiserganj, Tehsil- Kaiserganj, District
Bahraich and being aggrieved by the order
dated 16.03.2010, the opposite party Nos. 3
to 8 filed a revision i.e. Criminal Revision
No. 132 of 2010 (Ramendra Singh and
others vs. Jai Raj Singh and others), which
has not been disposed of till date.

From the aforesaid, it is apparent
that that 14 years have elapsed but the
revision has not been decided till date.

While
pressing
the
present
application for the main relief sought, it is
stated by the learned counsel for the
applicant that according to the observations
made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
paragraphs 24 and 25 of the judgment
passed in the case of All India Judges'
Association and others vs. Union of India
and others reported in (2002) 4 SCC 247,
which are extracted hereunder, the judges
are not available in trial courts and for this
reason, the trial courts are over burdened
and in this view of the matter, the trial
courts are unable to decide the cases
expeditiously within reasonable time. In the
instant case, the revision, which relates to
summary
proceedings,
has
not
been
decided even after lapse of 14 years. As
such, the main prayer sought may kindly be
acceded.

"24. Mr F.S. Nariman has drawn
our attention to yet another important
aspect with regard to dispensation of
justice, namely, the huge backlog of
undecided cases. One of the reasons which
has been indicated even in the 120th Law
Commission Report was the inadequate
strength of Judges compared to the
population of the country. Even the
Standing Committee of Parliament headed
by Shri Pranab Mukherjee in its 85th
report, submitted in February 2002, to
Parliament, has recommended that there
should be an increase in the number of
Judges. The said Committee has noted the
Judge-population
ratio
in
different
countries and has adversely commented on
1 All. Krishna Chandra Singh @ Munna Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
279
the Judge-population ratio of 10.5 Judges
per 10 lakh people in India. The report
recommends the acceptance, in the first
instance, of increasing the Judge strength to
50 Judges per 10 lakh people as was
recommended
by
the
120th
Law
Commission Report.

25. An independent and efficient
judicial system is one of the basic
structures of our Constitution. If sufficient
number of Judges are not appointed, justice
would not be available to the people,
thereby undermining the basic structure. It
is well known that justice delayed is justice
denied. Time and again the inadequacy in
the number of Judges has adversely been
commented upon. Not only have the Law
Commission and the Standing Committee
of Parliament made observations in this
regard, but even the Head of the judiciary,
namely, the Chief Justice of India has had
more
occasion
than
one
to
make
observations in regard thereto. Under the
circumstances,
we
feel
it
is
our
constitutional obligation to ensure that the
backlog of the cases is decreased and
efforts are made to increase the disposal of
cases. Apart from the steps which may be
necessary for increasing the efficiency of
the judicial officers, we are of the opinion
that time has now come for protecting one
of the pillars of the Constitution, namely,
the judicial system, by directing increase,
in the first instance, in the Judge strength
from the existing ratio of 10.5 or 13 per 10
lakh people to 50 Judges per 10 lakh
people. We are conscious of the fact that
overnight these vacancies cannot be filled.
In order to have additional Judges, not only
will the posts have to be created but
infrastructure required in the form of
additional courtrooms, buildings, staff etc.,
would also have to be made available. We
are also aware of the fact that a large
number of vacancies as of today from
amongst the sanctioned strength remain to
be filled. We, therefore, first direct that the
existing vacancies in the subordinate courts
at all levels should be filled, if possible
latest by 31-3-2003, in all the States. The
increase in the Judge strength to 50 Judges
per 10 lakh people should be effected and
implemented with the filling up of the posts
in a phased manner to be determined and
directed by the Union Ministry of Law, but
this process should be completed and the
increased vacancies and posts filled within
a period of five years from today. Perhaps
increasing the Judge strength by 10 per 10
lakh people every year could be one of the
methods which may be adopted thereby
completing the first stage within five years
before embarking on further increase if
necessary."

Upon due consideration of the
aforesaid
particularly
the
period
of
pendency of the revision challenging the
order passed in the proceedings under
Section
145
Cr.P.C.
as
also
the
observations made by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case, referred above, this Court
finds it appropriate to direct the concerned
officers of the Court to apprise this Court
as to what steps have been taken to comply
the ratio as indicated in the judgment
passed in the case of All India Judges'
Association (supra).

Accordingly,
Chief
Secretary,
Government
of
U.P.
and
Principal
Secretary,
Law/Legal
Remembrance,
Government of U.P. are directed to file
personal affidavit within two weeks on the
aforesaid.

List/put up this case as fresh on
25.07.2024 within top ten cases."

5. In pursuance of the aforesaid order,
personal affidavits have been filed by Mr.
Vinod Singh Rawat, Principal Secretary
Law,
Government
of
U.P.,
Civil
280 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Secretariat, Lucknow on 20.08.2024, Mr.
Manoj Kumar Singh, Chief Secretary,
Government of U.P., Civil Secretariat,
Lucknow on 07.09.2024 as well as by Mr.
Deepak
Kumar,
Additional
Chief
Secretary,
Department
of
Finance,
Government of U.P., Civil Secretariat,
Lucknow on 19.10.2024.

6. In the affidavit dated 20.08.2024
filed by Mr. Vinod Singh Rawat, it is
admitted that in relation to the strength of
judges, on the basis of population, Hon'ble
Apex Court, in the case of Imtiyaz Ahmad
Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (Misc.
Application No. 2362-2370 of 2019 in
Criminal Appeal No. 254-262/2012), has
observed that the report of Chairperson of
National
Court
Management
System
Committee reveals that judge strength of
courts in the district judiciary will have to
be assessed by a scientific method to
determine the total number of judicial
hours required for disposing of the case
load of each court. Hon'ble Apex Court
also observed that since the Union
Government is broadly in agreement with
this approach, permission was granted to
utilize it for the purpose of determining the
required judge strength of the district
judiciary.

It is also admitted in the said
affidavit that the proposal of creation of
courts has already been moved by the
High
Court,
on
the
basis
of
requirements, relevant laws as well as
directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court
issued from time to time. Paragraph 6
of
the
affidavit,
in
which
the
observations made by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Imtiyaz Ahmad
(supra) have been quoted, is reproduced
hereunder :

6. That it is also respectfully
submitted that in relation to the number of
Judges/Courts in the subordinate courts, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to
pass an order dated 02-01-2017 in Misc.
Application No. 2362-2370 of 2019 in
Criminal A No.254-262/2012 "Imtiyaz
Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & another"
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
been pleased to observe as follows:-

NCMSC has suggested that the
clearance of backlog is not the sole or
central basis determining judge strength.
Several other critical parameters include (i)
rate of case clearance: number of cases
disposed of as a percentage of institution;
(ii) on time disposal rate the percentage of
cases resolved within an established time
frame;
(iii)
pre-trial
custody
periods
wherein an under-trial is in custody
pending trial of a criminal case; and (iv)
trial date certainty the proportion of
important case processing provisions that
are
held
according
to
the
schedule
finalized.

The approach which has been
suggested, based on the unit system, is as
follows:

"Applying The Unit System to
Assess Required Judge Strength

(1) Number of judges required to
dispose of the annual "flow" of new cases

("break even")

. Every court should calculate in
units its average annual filing over the
previous five years for all types of cases.

. Divide the annual filing units
above by the number of annual units
required to be disposed of by a judge for
VERY GOOD performance.

. This will give for each court, the
number of judges required to ensure "break
even", le., disposal equals the number of
new cases filed every year in that court. (ii)
1 All. Krishna Chandra Singh @ Munna Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
281
Number of judges required for disposal of
backlog of cases

.
First,
every
court
should
calculate in units its backlog", i.e. the
number of cases of all categories pending
for more than the maximum time standard
set by it for disposal (e.g., three years)

. Second, a suitable time period
may be established within which this
"backlog" should be cleared (e.g. 5 years).

. Third, divide the total backlog in
units by the number of years within which
it has to be cleared (e.g. 5 years). This will
give the required annual disposal of
"backlog".

. Fourth, divide the required
annual disposal of backlog by the number
of annual units required to be disposed of
by each judge (units required for VERY
GOOD performance).

. This gives the number of judges
required to dispose of "the backlog" within
the prescribed time frame.

. The judge strength so assessed
should be monitored annually.

iii. Total number of judges
required for achieving "break even" plus
"disposal of backlog"

. Add the number of judges
required for "break even" to the number of
Judges required to disposal of backlog, as
determined above.

iv. Trigger for creation of new
courts."

7. In para 7 of the said affidavit, it is
also mentioned that in pursuance of the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Imtiyaz Ahmad (supra), the High
Court has already proposed for creation of
total
9149
courts
vide
Letter
No.
9553/Main-B/Admin
(A-3)
dated
11.08.2021 and in consequence of the
same, the Finance Department has advised
to create the 9149 courts in a phased
manner.

Thereafter,
a
meeting
was
organised under the chairmanship of Chief
Secretary,
Government
of
U.P.
on
22.04.2024, in which, creation of courts in
the first phase was decided. Paragraphs 7 to
10 of the affidavit is reproduced hereunder
:

"7. That in furtherance of the
above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court regarding the determination and
creation of the number of judges/courts in
the District Court, the Hon'ble High Court
of Allahabad has proposed for the creation
of a total of 9149 courts vide letter no.
9553/Main-B/Admin (A-3) dated 11-08-
2021. In consequence of the above proposal
of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad with
regard to the creation of 9149 courts, the
proposal was referred to the Finance
Department for consent, in furtherance to
which the Finance Department has advised
to create the above 9149 courts in a phased
manner.

In consultation of the above
advice of the Finance Department it was
requested to the Hon'ble High Court
Allahabad to determine that the said courts
shall be created in how many phases in
furtherance to which the Hon'ble Court has
been pleased to determine the same at the
level of the governance. Thereafter in order
to determine the phases of creation of 9149
courts in furtherance of the advice of the
Finance Department and the proposal made
by the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad, a
meeting
was
organized
under
the
chairmanship of the Chief Secretary,
Government of U.P on 22-04-2024. It is
respectfully submitted that in the said
meeting the creation of the courts in the
first phase was decided/opined as under :-
282 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(i) The sanctioned courts of the
cadre of Higher Judicial Services/posts
shall be doubled. At present there is 1690
Courts/posts are sanctioned in the cadre of
Higher Judicial Services and as such to
create 1690 additional courts/posts.

(ii) Total 50 % of the additional
posts of the present 805 sanctioned
courts/posts
of
Civil
Judge
(Senior
Division) shall be created, which counts to
402 more courts/posts.

(iii) Total 50% of the additional
posts of the present 1203 sanctioned
courts/posts
of
Civil
Judge
(Junior
Division) shall be created, which counts to
601 more courts/posts.

It was also decided that after the
first phase, decision would be taken
regarding creation of the remaining courts
out of 9149, in compliance of the
orders/directives passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Misc. Application No.
2362/2370 of 2019 in Criminal A No-254262/2012 "Imtiaz Ahmad Vs. State of U.P
& others".

A true copy of the minutes of the
meeting dated 22-04-2024 held under the
chairmanship of the Chief Secretary
Government of U.P. is enclosed herewith
as

Annexure No.- 1 to this affidavit
for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court.

8.
That
it
is
respectfully
submitted that in furtherance of the meeting
held and the decision taken under the
chairmanship of the deponent the proposal
for creation of the above courts/posts, the
file was reffered to the Finance Department
for consent of the Finance Department, in
furtherance
to
which
the
Finance
Department
has
made
following
inquiries/questions:-

(i) Details of the pending cases in
the various courts of State.

(ii) Details of the new cases filed
in the different courts 4-5 years before.

(iii) Action plan to dispose the
pending cases on priority in a phased
manner.

(iv) Details of the posts on the
creation of each court.

(v) Details of expenditure on
establishment, vehicle and other grants,
office and residential buildings of the
Hon'ble Courts.

(vi) Basis of the calculation of
number of suits.

(vii) By making the NCMS report
available on file, the status of pending
cases in the State on the basis of national
average.

(viii)
Information
related
to
AOR's letter.

9- That in addition to the above
mentioned 8 points of para 5 above, the
Finance Department has requested to sent a
clear
proposal
providing
information/related records on a total of 14
points including information previously
sought:-

1. Details are not submitted with
regard to the existing sanctioned posts of
HJS, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Civil
Judge (Junior Division) and details with
regard to how many posts of different
categories are sanctioned, have also not
been given.

2. What standard has been set up
by the State Government for the creation of
posts and the details of the cases which are
pending in different categories of courts in
each district have not been mentioned in
the comments.

3. Details of the posts required to
be created as per the proposed courts and
their
categories
and
the
financial
expenditure required in proportion to the
same have not been given by the
administrative department.
1 All. Krishna Chandra Singh @ Munna Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
283

4. It is noteworthy that as a result
of the formation of subordinate courts,
there is a need for proper arrangement of
basic infrastructure facilities. Therefore, in
view to provide the infrastructure facilities,
the estimated expenditure burden has not
been assessed, so that it can be made clear
as to how much financial burden will be
generated for the same.

5. Request has been made to
Administrative Department to provide the
details of Judge to case ratio.

6. Request shall be made to the
Administrative Department to provide the
existing examples in other States.

It is respectfully submitted that
information regarding the above points no.
1 to 5 have been provided by the Hon'ble
High
Court,
Allahabad
vide
letter
no.4066/Main-B/Admin (A-3), dated 0404-2022 and with respect of the point no. 6
a request has been made to obtain
information from the state level itself.

10-
That
it
is
respectfully
submitted
that
in
order
to
provide
information regarding point number (I-VII)
mentioned in the above paragraph no. 5, the
Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad has been
requested by the government letter no.
570/Saat-Nyay-2-2023-Writ 09/2020 dated
11-07-2024 and to obtain information
regarding point number 6 mentioned in
paragraph no. 6 other States have been
requested to provide requisite information
vide letter no.600/Saat- Nyay-2-2024-writ
09/2020 dated 11-07-2024."

8. Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Chief
Secretary, Government of U.P., Civil
Secretariat, Lucknow in his affidavit
dated 09.09.2024 also admitted that the
request of the High Court with regard to
creation
of
9149
courts
has
been
considered and in the meeting held on
22.04.2024, it has been decided that in
the first phase, 2693 posts would be
created.

Paragraphs 1 to 8 of the said
affidavit dated 09.09.2024 are as under :

"1.
That
the
deponent
is
presently posted as Chief Secretary,
Government of U.P and the deponent is
filing the instant personal affidavit in
compliance of the order dated 08-07-2024
and 25.07.2024 passed by the Hon'ble
Court.

2. That Hon'ble Supreme Court
has been pleased to pass an order dated
02-01-2017 in Misc. Application No.
2362-2370 of 2019 in Criminal A
No.254-262/2012 "Imtiyaz Ahmad Vs.
State of U.P. & another" for creation of
additional courts in districts.

3. That based on the formula
suggested by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in above case, Hon'ble High Court vide
its letter no.9553/Main-B/Admin (A-3)
Dated 11.08.2021 sent a proposal of
creation of 9,149 Courts. This is based on
the criteria suggested by National Court
Management Committee (NCMS). The
recommendation of the NCMS has been
accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Criminal A No.254-262/2012 "Imtiyaz
Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & another".

4. That in furtherance of the
above proposal of Hon'ble High Court
with regard to the creation of 9149
courts, a request had been made to the
Hon'ble High Court by the Government
vide its letter dated 21.07.2023 seeking
guidance on number of phases in which
these additional Courts be created. In
pursuance to Government's above request
the Registrar General Hon'ble High Court
vide letter dated 18.09.2023 has proposed
that the Government should take decison
on phasing of these 9149 courts.
284 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5.
A
request
letter
dated
24.07.2024 was sent by the Government to
the Registrar General, Hon'ble High Court
about the information on pendency of cases
in District Courts. The response to above
letter has been recieved on 13.08.2024. The
information furnished shows a pendency of
approximately 1.11 crores cases and
disposal of approximately 1.04 lacs in a
year (April 2022 to March 2023).

6. Hon'ble High Court in its order
dated 25.07.2024 has observed that "... To
file better affidavit after taking note of
present population of the State of U.P.".
The present population of the State is
approximately 24 crores. The norm of
Judge to population ratio of 50 judges on
10 lac population requires creation of
12000 Courts.

7. The number of existing District
level Courts is approximately 3500, so
there is a gap of 8500 by above Judge to
Population formula. The huge pendency of
cases and the number of cases being
disposed in a year as give in Para- 5 above
cannot be handled by only increasing the
number of Courts. There is a definite
requirement of streamlining the other
processes and ensuring higher number of
disposal by each district level Court.

8. That to decide the number of
phases a meeting was organized under the
chairmanship of the Chief Secretary,
Government of U.P on 22-04-2024. It is
respectfully submitted that in first phase it
has been decided to create 2693. The
details of which are as follows:

(i) The sanctioned courts of the
cadre of Higher Judicial Services/posts
shall be doubled. At present there is 1690
Courts/posts are sanctioned in the cadre of
Higher Judicial Services and as such to
create 1690 additional courts/posts.

(ii) Total 50% of the additional
posts of the present 805 sanctioned
courts/posts
of
Civil
Judge
(Senior
Division) shall be created, which counts to
402 more courts/posts.

(iii) Total 50% of the additional
posts of the present 1203 sanctioned
courts/posts
of
Civil
Judge
(Junior
Division) shall be created, which counts to
601 more courts/posts.

It was also decided that after the
first phase, decision would be taken
regarding creation of the remaining courts
out of 9149, in compliance of the
orders/directives passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Misc. Application No.
2362/2370 of 2019 in Criminal A No- 254262/2012 "Imtiaz Ahmad Vs. State of U.P
& others".

A true copy of the minutes of the
meeting dated 22-04-2024 held under the
chairmanship of the deponent is enclosed
herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this
affidavit for kind perusal of the Hon'ble
Court."

9. Mentioning the similar facts, Mr.
Deepak
Kumar,
Additional
Chief
Secretary,
Department
of
Finance,
Government of U.P., Civil Secretariat,
Lucknow, in his affidavit dated 19.10.2024,
stated that the State Government is
ensuring the compliance of the directions
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Imtiyaz Ahmad (supra) to make 9149
courts operational. It is also admitted in the
affidavit that points have already been
considered
in
the
meeting
held
on
15.10.2024 under the chairmanship of
Chief Secretary, Government of U.P.

Paragraphs 4 to 12 of the said
affidavit are as under :

"4-
That
it
is
respectfully
submitted in compliance to the order dated
17-07-2021 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Misc. Application No. 23522370
of 2019 in Criminal A No. 254-262/2012
1 All. Krishna Chandra Singh @ Munna Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
285
"Imtiyaaz Ahmad Vs. State of U.P &
another", a total of 9149 courts are to be
constituted in the State in different phases.

5- That in the context of Goal No.
16 of Sustainable Development Goals
2030, a one-time plan is also made to
increase the number of courts and judges
on per lakh of population.

6- That vide order dated 02-012017 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
the number of judges in the subordinate
courts are to be determined as per the
number of cases pending in the courts.

7- That at present, there are 3698
sanctioned courts in the State of Uttar
Pradesh. Under SDG Goal No. 16, there
should be 4.25 courts on per lakh of
population. At present, 1.59 courts have
been created on per lakh of population in
the State of Uttar Pradesh, whereas the
national average is 1.85 on per lakh of
population and thus, the number of courts
on per lakh of population in the State of
Uttar Pradesh is much less than the national
average.

8- That in reference to Goal No.
16 of Sustainable Development Goals,
2030, the Government of U.P, Nyay
Anubhag-
2
(Subordinate
Courts),
a
meeting
was
organized
under
the
chairmanship of the Chief Secretary on 2204-2024 in order to increase the number of
courts and Posts on per one lakh of
population.

9- That in compliance of the
orders/directives passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Misc. Application No.
2362.2370 of 2019 in Criminal Case No.
254.262/2012, "Imtiyaz Ahmad Vs. State
of U.P. & another", regarding formation of
9149 courts in the State, a meeting was
held on 22-04-2024 under the chairmanship
of the Chief Secretary, wherein a decision
has been taken to set up 2693 courts in the
first phase as against the total proposed
9149 courts, as follows:-

(i) The number of courts/posts
sanctioned in HJS cadre at present should
be doubled. At present, 1690 courts/posts
are sanctioned in HJS cadre and 1690 more
courts/posts should be created.

(ii) 50% of the present sanctioned
number of 805 Courts/posts of Civil Judge
(Senior Division) should be created i.e. 402
more Courts/posts should be created.
(iii) 50% more courts/posts of Civil Judge
(Junior Division) out of the present
sanctioned number of 1203 courts/posts be
created i.e. 601 more courts/posts be
created.

10- That in the 75 Districts of the
State, there are 2443 courts of HJS cadre,
3966 courts of Civil Judge (Senior
Division), 2740 courts of Civil Judge
(Junior Division), thus in the process of
formation of total 9149 courts, the current
status of the created, filled and vacant posts
is shown in a table, which is as follows:-

S
I
Cad
re
San
ctio
ned
Stre
ngth

Wo
rki
ng
Str
eng
th

Va
can
cy
Propo
sed
Streng
th
In
compl
iance
of
Hon.
S.C.
order
Imtiya
z
Ahma
d
vs
UP
State
dt.
17.07.
2021
for
Tota
l
Prop
osed
San
ctio
ned
Stre
ngth
8=3
+6(b
)
286 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
NCM
Sc
1
2
3
4
5
6
a
6
b

1 Hig
her
Jud
icia
l
ser
vic
e
169
0
126
8
422
1
1
5
2
2
4
4
3
413
3
2 Civ
il
Jud
ge
(Ju
nior
Div
isio
n)
805
575 230
4
4
7
3
3
9
6
6
477
1
3 Civ
il
Jud
ge
(Se
nior
Div
isio
n)
120
3
889 314
2
3
8
4
2
7
4
0
394
3
4

369
8
273
2
966
8
0
0
9
9
1
4
9
128
47

Note:

. Out of total 3698 sanctioned
Courts, 02 Courts at Gonda 9 one each in
the cadre of Civil Judge, S.D and Civil
Judge, J.D.) and 02 courts Moradabad (one
each in the cadre of Civil Judge, S.D. and
Civil Judge, J.D.) have been kept in
abeyance.

. 212 temporary Fast Track
Courts i.e. 72 in H.J.S. Cadre, 72 in Civil
Judge strength. The term of these courts
has been extended up to 29.02.2024."

11- That in the meeting convened
on 15-10-2024 under the chairmanship of
the
Chief
Secretary,
after
a
due
consideration with the present departments
following opinion has been settled :-

(i) On the basis of the report of
N.C.M.S.C constituted by Hon'ble Supreme
Court, in view of the 9149 different
categories of courts enumerated by Hon'ble
High Court, Allahabad and accordingly
keeping in view the number of posts, in the
first year, 900 courts/posts (as per the
proposal of the department of Law
mentioned in the meeting convened at the
level of the Chief Secretary on 22.04.2024,
H.J.S 75 X 3 = 225, Civil Judge Senior
Division 75 X 5 = 375, Civil Judge Junior
Division 75 X 4= 300 i.e. total 900) shall
be established.

(ii) Similarly, in the second year,
again 900 courts of different categories and
corresponding posts will be established and
in each of the subsequent 7 years, different
categories of courts and corresponding
posts will be established. As per the above
procedure, in the final tenth year, 1049
courts
of
different
categories
and
corresponding posts will be established,
achieving
the
target
of
total
9149
courts/posts and ensuring

compliance of the decision dated
02-01-2017 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in "Imtiyaz Hussain Vs. State of
U.P."

(iii) It was also expected that
efforts would be made by the Law
Department to fill up a total existing 966
vacancies in present (422 of H.J.S, 230 for
Civil Judge Senior Division (C.J.S.D) and
314 for C.J.D),

(iv)
Besides
this,
the
Law
Department will also inform, firstly about
the estimated expenditure covered by the
1 All. Krishna Chandra Singh @ Munna Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
287
recurring (maintenance work) and nonrecurring (construction work) related to
establishment of one office of each level of
Court such as H.J.S, CJSD and CJJD and
secondly, about the recurring expenditure
related to salary etc. of supporting staff
relating to each level of court in the light of
arrangements
made
in
the
standard
Government Orders for creation of posts.

It is necessary to inform about the
estimation of estimated recurring and nonrecurring
expenditure
by
the
Law
Department so that the Finance Department
may make appropriate budget provision in
respect of estimated expenditure related to
establishment of posts in 900 different
categories of each courts and office staff,
every year, in the Budget Estimates of each
year for the Law Department in time and as
required.

(v) It is also expected that on
receipt of the final report of the NCMSC,
the Department of Law will reconsider the
matter in due course and as necessary.

12- That in the meeting held on
22-04-2024, under the chairmanship of
Chief Secretary, after due deliberation, in
continuation of the opinion taken regarding
creation of 2693 courts against the total
proposed 9149 courts in the first phase, on
15-10-2024,
900
courts
of
different
categories and the posts accordingly in the
first years, similarly 900 again in the
second year as aforesaid and 900 courts of
different
categories
and
the
post
accordingly in each year in the subsequent
07 years, while establishing 1049 courts of
different
categories
and
the
posts
accordingly in the final tenth year, ensuring
compliance of the decision dated 02-01-
2017 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in
"Imtiyaz
Hussain
Vs.
State
Government", a target of total 9149
courts/posts will be achieved."

10. In a recent judgment of Hon'ble
Apex Court dated 22.11.2024 passed in the
case of Sonu Agnihotri Vs. Chandra
shekhar & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC
3382, it is observed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that in the case of All India
Judges' Association & Ors. Vs. Union of
India (UOI) & Ors., (2002) 4 SCC 247, it
was directed that endeavour should be
made within five years to increase the
judge-to-population ratio in trial judiciary
to 50 per million. However, the ratio of 25
per million has not been achieved till the
year 2024.

11. This Court also notices that several
petitions are being filed before this Court,
like the present one, for expedite disposal
of the suits, trial of criminal cases pending
before the Magistrate, trial of session
matters as well as matters related to family
dispute along with other matters.

It is crystal clear from the
affidavits filed by Mr. Vinod Singh Rawat,
Principal Secretary Law, Government of
U.P., Civil Secretariat, Lucknow, Mr.
Manoj Kumar Singh, Chief Secretary,
Government of U.P., Civil Secretariat,
Lucknow as well as by Mr. Deepak Kumar,
Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Finance,
Government
of
U.P.,
Civil
Secretariat, Lucknow that the directions of
the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case
of All India Judges' Association & Ors.
(supra) on 21.03.2002, which has been
taken note of in the case of Sonu
Agnihotri (supra) by the Hon'ble Apex
Court, has not been complied with till
today.

12. Learned members of the Bar
jointly submitted that this issue is having
wider impact on our judicial system and,
therefore, requested that the issue may be
288 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dealt as Public Interest Litigation for
ensuring the 9149 courts operational.

13. Hon'ble Supreme Court has
already laid down that, in case of a
situation, in which, issue of public interest
is involved, the same may be referred to the
Bench dealing with PIL matters. Reference
may be made to Para 10 of the decision of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case on State of
Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Neeraj
Chaubey & Ors., (2010) 10 SCC 320,
which reads as under :

"10. In case an application is filed
and the Bench comes to the conclusion that
it involves some issues relating to Public
Interest, the Bench may not entertain it as a
Public Interest Litigation but the court has
its option to convert it into a public interest
litigation and ask the Registry to place it
before a Bench which has jurisdiction to
entertain the PIL as per the Rules,
guidelines or by the roster fixed by the
Chief Justice but the Bench cannot convert
itself into a PIL and proceed with the
matter itself."

14. In view of above facts and
circumstances, this Court is of the view that
the issue related to creation of 9149 courts
is related to interest of public at large and,
therefore, the Registry is directed to
register the PIL as a separate case and place
it before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for
appropriate direction.
---------
(2025) 1 ILRA 288
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.01.2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

Writ A No. 17904 of 2020
With other connected cases
Om Prakash & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, Akshat Kumar,
Jitendra Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C., Puneet Singh, Rishabh Kapoor

Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Water Supply
and Sewerage Act, 1975 - Sections 8 & 89
- Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 -
Salary, family pension - Retrospective
regularization
-
Petitioners
initially
appointed on daily wages basis in Nigam -
By Government order dated 12.04.2011
they were regularized with immediate
effect - Later on, Nigam passed order
dated 26.04.2011 regularized petitioners
w.e.f Government order - Nigam on its
own accord indicated for purpose of pay
fixation, petitioners would be entitled for
counting of their service after five years of
continuous
service
of
their
initial
appointment
i.e
w.e.f
01.04.1991
to
01.04.1995, no arrears admissible for
aforesaid period till 11.04.2011 - Nigam
order was contrary to Government order,
various letters including letter dated
12.02.2020
were
written
seeking
clarification. (Para 23, 25)

St. Government by impugned order dated
18.08.2020 declared all regularizations
done w.e.f 01.04.1991 to 01.04.1995
wrong and cancelled, any payment/pay
fixation, increments, time scale of pay etc.
given are erroneous and pay fixation
modified by regularized w.e.f 26.04.2011,
direction for recovery of excess amount
paid, department action against guilty
officials and petitioners entitled for New
Pension Scheme w.e.f 01.04.2005 - Nigam
withdrawn benefits pertaining to pay
fixation. (Para 26, 27)

Held,
when
Government
decided
to
regularize with immediate effect, Nigam
bound by said directions and could not
proceed beyond order and granted any