# M/s Rajdhani Inter State Transport Co. New Delhi v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 932
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-19
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 3389 of 2025
- **Bench:** Pankaj Bhatia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-rajdhani-inter-state-transport-co-new-delhi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53471
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226, 14, 21 & 32-Allahabad High
Court Rules 1952-Ch. IV- Rule 3-Notaries
Act,
1952-Section
8(1)(e)-The
court
addressed two critical issues impacting
access to justice-the validity of affidavits
sworn before Notary Publics and the
unlawful imposition of charges for photo
identification
by
Bar
Associations-The
court held that affidavits attested by
Notary Publics under the Notaries Act are
valid and must be accepted by the court
registry without objections-the court also
declared the practice of charging Rs. 500
for photo identification in excess of the
officially sanctioned Rs. 125 as illegal,
unsanctioned
and
violative
of
constitutional principles ensuring access
to justice-Any extra collection will attract
contempt
proceedings-direction
issued.
(Para 1 to 39)

The writ petition is disposed of. (E-6)

## Text

932 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
No.113 of 2013 as referred earlier,
however, there is another criminal case
against the petitioner, bearing Case Crime
No. 123 of 2011, in respect to which, some
document has been filed by the petitioner
indicating submission of a Final Report by
the Investigating Officer, however, there is
no
order
regarding
its
acceptance,
therefore, the petitioner will have to find
out as to whether the Final Report has been
accepted, if so, produce the said order
before the Regional Passport Officer. If it
has not been accepted or on a protest
application, same is being proceeded, then,
he will have to seek permission from the
Court of criminal jurisdiction, where the
said case is pending on the same lines as
discussed
hereinabove.
If,
the
NOC/Permission for going abroad is
granted by the aforesaid Courts, then, the
petitioner shall submit the same before the
Regional Passport Officer concerned, who
shall then process the application of the
petitioner for issuance of passport as per
law and take a decision within a period
three weeks of submission of such
NOC/Permission.

29. The writ petition is allowed.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 932
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ C No. 3389 of 2025

M/s Rajdhani Inter State Transport Co.
New Delhi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Tushar Mittal, Kartikey Dubey, Shrikant
Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226, 14, 21 & 32-Allahabad High
Court Rules 1952-Ch. IV- Rule 3-Notaries
Act,
1952-Section
8(1)(e)-The
court
addressed two critical issues impacting
access to justice-the validity of affidavits
sworn before Notary Publics and the
unlawful imposition of charges for photo
identification
by
Bar
Associations-The
court held that affidavits attested by
Notary Publics under the Notaries Act are
valid and must be accepted by the court
registry without objections-the court also
declared the practice of charging Rs. 500
for photo identification in excess of the
officially sanctioned Rs. 125 as illegal,
unsanctioned
and
violative
of
constitutional principles ensuring access
to justice-Any extra collection will attract
contempt
proceedings-direction
issued.
(Para 1 to 39)

The writ petition is disposed of. (E-6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.)

1. In furtherance to the order dated
16.04.2025 wherein, this Court had noticed
the grievances as raised by the petitioner
with regard to the affidavit sworn before
the Notary Public not being accepted and
also with regard to the manner in which the
amount of Rs.400/- to Rs.500/- was being
charged from the litigants contrary to any
provisions of law, the instructions were
called and have been given by the counsel
appearing on behalf of the High Court
which are taken on record.

2. Heard Shri Tushar Mittal, learned
Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court;
Shri J.N. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate;
5 All. M/s Rajdhani Inter State Transport Co. New Delhi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
933
Shri S.M. Singh Roykwar, learned counsel
who has appeared to assist this Court; Shri
Manoj Dwivedi, General Secretary of the
Oudh Bar Association and Shri Gaurav
Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for the
High Court.

3. Shri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned
counsel, based upon instructions given to
him by the Registrar General of this Court,
straightway states that there is no proposal
to reject the petitions, applications and
other filing which are supported by the
affidavit sworn by Notary Public. He states
in very clear terms that any petition which
is accompanied by an affidavit sworn
before the Notary Public appointed under
the Notaries Act is and shall be a valid
document in respect of the petitions and
other filings. With regard to the factum
which has led to the disputes including the
charging of Rs.500/- for the photo
identification both at Allahabad as well at
Lucknow, it was stated that in Public
Interest Litigation No.55060 of 2015, a
Division
Bench
of
this
Court
had
considered the manner in which the
affidavits are sworn before the Oath
Commissioner appointed in terms of the
High Court Rules. This Court was
appraised of the manner in which the
charges were being levelled from the
clients for availing the facility of photo
identification by the Bar Association and it
was observed that the action of the High
Court Bar Association in charging the
amounts has no legal sanction and a
restraint order was passed restraining the
High Court Bar Association from acting in
pursuance
to
their
resolution
dated
04.09.2015 unless and until the modalities
have been submitted by the High Court Bar
Association and are approved by the
Hon'ble Chief Justice.

4. It is also brought on record that
despite there being an order, as noticed
above, still an amount of Rs.500/- was
being charged, as such, the matter once
again came up before a Division Bench of
this Court in Writ - C No.33750 of 2022
(Abhishek Shukla v. High Court Bar
Association & Anr.) in which the Court
after observing the manner in which the
fees of Rs.500/- being charged solely based
upon
the
resolution
passed
by
the
Governing Council of the High Court Bar
Association, proceeded to pass an interim
order staying the resolution passed on
31.10.2022.

5. It is informed that despite there
being restraint orders, as noticed above, the
practice of charging Rs.500/- from the
litigants solely for the identification of
photos which are required for affixing on
affidavits are continuing both at Allahabad
and at Lucknow.

6. In response thereof, learned counsel
for the High Court draws my attention to
Chapter IV Rule 2 & Rule 3 of the
Allahabad High Court Rules, which are as
under:

"2. Fees.- Such fees shall be paid
for the verification of affidavits before Oath
Commissioners as may be prescribed from
time to time by order of the Chief Justice.

3. Register.- Oath Commissioners
shall maintain a register or registers which
shall contain the following particulars with
respect to each affidavit sworn before them,
namely :-

(a) serial number;

(b) date and time of making
affidavit;

(c) particulars of the case to
which affidavit relates;
934 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(d) full particulars of person
making the affidavit;

(e) particular of the person
identifying him;

(f) fee paid;

(g) name of Oath Commissioner
before whom affidavit, is sworn; and

(h)
signature
of
Oath
Commissioner and remarks, if any

The Chief Justice may from time
to time fix the number of registers to be
maintained and add to or alter the
particulars required to be entered therein.
The registers shall be open to inspection by
the Registrar."

7. It is argued that in terms of the
proviso to Rule 3, the Chief Justice is
empowered to fix the number of registers to
be maintained and add to or alter the
particulars required to be entered therein.

8. In terms of the said powers, initially
the Administrative Committee vide its
meeting held on 06.10.2015 passed the
following resolution:

"Agenda:

Re:
Implementation
of
the
procedure of photo affidavit system of the
Hon'ble Court.

Consideration of letter dated 1
October
2015
of
High
Court
Bar
Association, Allahabad along with its
enclosures and the order dated 29
September 2015 of the Hon'ble Court
passed in Public Interest Litigation (PIC)
No. 55060 of 2015 along with office note
dated 11 September 2015 in the matter.

Resolution:

Considered the letter dated 1
October
2015
of
High
Court
Bar
Association, Allahabad along with it's
enclosures and order dated 29 September,
2015 of the Hon'ble Court passed in Public
Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 55060 of 2015
along with office note dated 11 September
2015 in the matter.

Resolved
that
the
following
directions may be issued by the Chief
Justice under Chapter IV Rule 3 of the
Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952:

"(1) The Oath Commissioners
shall maintain a register which shall
contain the prescribed particulars with
respect to each affidavit sowrn;

(2)
The
deponent
of
every
affidavit shall affix his or her passport size
photograph together with the identification
number issued by the Allahabad High
Court Bar Association;

(3) For one particular case,
one identification number shall be
allocated to a person by the Allahabad
High Court Bar Association which may
be used for all subsequent affidavits to
be filed by the same deponent in the
same case;

(4) The identification number
allocated to a particular deponent in a case
shall also be specifically recorded in the
register;

Provided
that
the
above
modalities shall not be insisted upon in
regard to the affidavits to be filed by the
officials of the State or Union Governments
or on behalf of the instrumentalities of the
State."

Further resolved that having due
regard to the nature of the work which is to
be carried out by the Allahabad High Court
Bar Association and the administrative
expenses involved, an amount of Rs.
Seventy per identification number may be
charged by the Bar Association. The
amount
so prescribed
shall
not
be
enhanced without prior approval of the
Registrar General on the instructions of the
Chief Justice."
5 All. M/s Rajdhani Inter State Transport Co. New Delhi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
935

9.
Subsequently,
an
Office
Memorandum was issued on 10.09.2018 by
the Registrar General, which is extracted
herein below:

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
ALLAHABAD
ADMIN, 'G-I' (AMENDMENT)
SECTION
OFFICE MEMORANDUM

No.268/Admin.
G-I/Allahabad:

 Dated: September 10, 2018

In supersession of the earlier
Office Memorandum No.763 /Admin. GI/Allahabad:
Dated:
30.08.2016,
for
implementation of the procedure of photo
affidavit system of the Hon'ble Court, as
per the provisions contained in Chapter IV
Rule 3 of the Allahabad High Court Rules,
1952, Hon'ble the Court has been pleased
to direct to issue hereby the new Office
Memorandum to the effect that -

(1) The Oath Commissioners
shall maintain a register which shall
contain the prescribed particulars with
respect to each affidavit sworn;

(2)
The
deponent
of
every
affidavit shall affix his or her passport size
photograph together with the identification
number issued by the Allahabad High
Court Bar Association or Advocates'
Association for Allahabad and Oudh Bar
Association for Lucknow Bench, Lucknow;

(3) For one particular case, one
identification number shall be allocated to
a person by the Allahabad High Court Bar
Association or Advocates' Association for
Allahabad and Oudh Bar Association for
Lucknow Bench, Lucknow which may be
used for all subsequent affidavits to be
filled by the same deponent in the same
case;

(4) The identification number
allocated to a particular deponent in a case
shall also be specifically recorded in the
register;

Provided
that
the
above
modalities shall not be insisted upon in
regard to the affidavits to be filed by the
officials of the State or Union Governments
or on behalf of the instrumentalities of the
State.

It is further directed that having
due regard to the nature of the work which
is to be carried out by the Allahabad High
Court Bar Association or Advocates
Association for Allahabad and Oudh Bar
Association for Lucknow Bench, Lucknow
and the administrative expenses involved,
an amount of Rs. Seventy per identification
number may be charged by the Bar
Association or Advocates' Association for
Allahabad and Oudh Bar Association for
Lucknow Bench, Lucknow. The amount so
prescribed shall not be enhanced without
prior approval of the Registrar General on
the instructions of the Chief Justice.

All concerned are directed to
comply
with
aforesaid
order
with
immediate effect.
By Order of the Court

(Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan)
Registrar General

10.
Subsequently,
vide
Office
Memorandum Dated 09.08.2023 issued by
the Registrar General, the facility of photo
identification number was extended to an
AOR who is not a Member of the Bar
Association.
Further,
by
Office
Memorandum Dated 22.11.2024, the photo
affidavit rates were enhanced to Rs.125/-.
The said Office Memorandum is extracted
herein below:
936 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
ALLAHABAD
ADMIN, 'G-I' (AMENDMENT)
SECTION
OFFICE MEMORANDUM

No.998/Admin.
G-I/Allahabad:

Dated: November 22, 2024

In supersession of the earlier
Office Memorandum No.805 /Admin. GI/Allahabad:
Dated:
09.08.2023,
for
implementation of the procedure of photo
affidavit system of the Hon'ble Court, as
per the provisions contained in Chapter IV
Rule 3 of the Allahabad High Court Rules,
1952, Hon'ble the Court has been pleased
to direct to issue hereby the modified Office
Memorandum to the effect that -

(1) The Oath Commissioners
shall maintain a register which shall
contain the prescribed particulars with
respect to each affidavit sworn;

(2)
The
deponent
of
every
affidavit shall affix his or her passport size
photograph together with the identification
number issued by the Allahabad High
Court Bar Association or Advocates'
Association for Allahabad and Oudh Bar
Association for Lucknow Bench, Lucknow;

(3) For one particular case, one
identification number shall be allocated to
a person by the Allahabad High Court Bar
Association or Advocates' Association for
Allahabad and Oudh Bar Association for
Lucknow Bench, Lucknow which may be
used for all subsequent affidavits to be
filled by the same deponent in the same
case;

(4) The identification number
allocated to a particular deponent in a case
shall also be specifically recorded in the
register;

Provided
that
the
above
modalities shall not be insisted upon in
regard to the affidavits to be filed by the
officials of the State or Union Governments
or on behalf of the instrumentalities of the
State.

Provided
further
that
an
Advocate who is having an AOR number
issued by the Hon'ble High Court but is not
a member of above associations, shall not
be refused for photo identification number.

It is further directed that having
due regard to the nature of the work which
is to be carried out by the Allahabad High
Court Bar Association or Advocates'
Association for Allahabad and Oudh Bar
Association for Lucknow Bench, Lucknow
and the administrative expenses involved,
an amount of Rupees One Hundred Twenty
Five per identification number may be
charged by the Bar Association or
Advocates' Association for Allahabad and
Oudh Bar Association for Lucknow Bench,
Lucknow. The amount so prescribed shall
not be enhanced without prior approval of
the Registrar General on the instructions of
the Chief Justice.

All concerned are directed to
comply
with
aforesaid
order
with
immediate effect.
By Order of the Court

(Rajeev Bharti)
Registrar General

11. He also places on record the letter
dated 12.04.2019 whereby a shop was
earmarked who is to carry out the work of
photo identification to the Oudh Bar
Association.

12. It is stated that drawing powers
from Rule 2 and proviso to Rule 3, the
charges for verification of an affidavit
before the Oath Commissioner were earlier
fixed at Rs.75/- and were subsequently
enhanced to Rs.125/-. It is argued that the
5 All. M/s Rajdhani Inter State Transport Co. New Delhi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
937
High Court either on its administrative side
or the Hon'ble Chief Justice in exercise of
powers, has never permitted the Bar
Associations to charge any amount over
and above the amount of Rs.125/-. It is
argued that the photo identification work
was assigned and was outsourced to be
carried out by the Bar Associations who in
turn have handed over the same to a third
party and the same is beyond the control of
the High Court.

13. With regard to the instructions of
Shri Gaurav Mehrotra that there is no bar in
an affidavit signed by the Notary Public,
Shri Tushar Mittal and Shri J.N. Mathur
draw the attention to the list of defects
which are uploaded on the website of the
High Court to argue that if the contention
of Shri Gaurav Mehrotra is accepted, on
account of the list of defects, which can be
noticed by the Filing Section pertaining to
affidavits, the actual filing of petitions, etc.
supported by an affidavit sworn before
Notary Public may not suffice and the
inconvenience caused to the litigants would
still continue.

14. Shri S.M. Singh Roykwar has
extensively argued that access to justice is a
right conferred by the Constitution and
cannot be defeated in the manner in which
the same is being disincentivized by
charging an amount in the name of photo
identification charges; the same, according
to him, is contrary to the constitutional
spirit of making the access to justice easy.

15. It is further argued that compelling
litigants to pay a high amount of Rs.500/-
in the name of Photo Affidavit Centre is
neither sanctioned by any law nor does it
work
towards
furtherance
of
the
constitutional philosophy of making the
access to justice easy. He further argues
that the Bar Association is, neither entitled
to accept any money from the litigants, nor
is
the
same
sanctioned
by
any
constitutional provision specifically when
the same is related to the proceedings
which are taken up before the High Court.

16. It is further argued that the
charging of the money from the litigants is
in violation of the interim directions passed
by the two Division Benches, as noticed
above. It is further argued that the charging
of any amount is also violative of Rule 26,
Chapter II of Part VI of Bar Council of
India Rules framed in exercise of powers
conferred by virtue of Section 49(1)(c) of
the Advocates Act.

17. In short, it is argued that access to
justice is being denied under the nose of the
High Court itself without there being any
statutory foundation for doing so. He also
argues that for filing a petition, the High
Court has uploaded a list of defects that can
be highlight by the Stamp Reporting
Section, which are 272 in number, which is
a
huge
deterrent
for
the
litigants
approaching this Court in State of Uttar
Pradesh where most of the litigants are
poor.

18. Shri J.N. Mathur, learned Senior
Advocate, highlights that as a result of 272
defects/objections which can be reported by
the Stamp Reporter and the same are not
even mentioned in the Allahabad High
Court Rules young members of the Bar are
spending their valuable time in running
after the Registry for removal of the defects
which cannot be the intent of making the
justice accessible to all which, according to
him, is the basic feature of Constitution.

19. Considering the submissions made
at the Bar and recorded above, it is clear
938 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that
access
to
justice
is
becoming
increasingly cumbersome because of two
things mainly: the first being, charging of
amounts in the name of photo identification
at the rate of Rs.500/- per affidavit and
secondly, the number of list of defects
which the Stamp Reporting Section is
making in the petitions, applications, etc.

20. It is also argued by Shri Tushar
Mittal that the High Court of Kerala has
taken an extremely laudible step by
amending their Rules and providing OTP
and Email notification based verification
with a view to ensure that impersonation is
ruled out; he states that a similar
incorporation may be considered and done
by amending the Rules appropriately.

21. It is clear in terms of the
constitutional mandate that access to justice is
a valuable right vested in citizens, in fact
right to approach the Supreme Court under
Article 32 is a fundamental right guaranteed
under Part III of Constitution; the right to
approach other Courts in the country is also a
constitutional right. Once there is a right to
avail judicial remedies being a constitutional
right, the road to access justice has to be
smooth and free of unwanted road blocks,
lest it becomes road less travelled. The
procedural requirements to achieve and
ensure the access to justice has to be erased
so that the constitutional right is not reduced
to an empty provision. Procedures prescribed
for access cannot be such that defeat the very
purpose they seek to achieve. The procedures
should be to lubricate the path instead of
becoming a resistance. Procedures although
essential are like friction which is a
'necessary evil' but cannot be excessive lest it
brings the entire machinery to a stand still.

22. Considering the submissions made
at the Bar, it is essential to notice that
Notaries Act was promulgated in the year
1952 with prescriptions for appointment of
Notaries by the Central Government as
well as by the State Government. The
functions conferred upon the Notaries are
specified in Section 8, and Section 8(1)(e)
empowers the Notaries to administer oath
to, or take affidavit from, any person.

23. Considering the submission of Shri
Gaurav Mehrotra that the affidavits sworn
before the Notary Public under the Notaries
Act are accepted as valid affidavits, as an
interim measure, it is directed that the
Registry/Stamp Reporting Section shall
accept all the petitions, applications,
appeals etc., filed before the High Court,
both at Allahabad and Lucknow and duly
supported by the affidavits sworn before
the Notary Public appointed in the entire
country of India as a valid affidavit in
support of the petitions, applications,
appeals, etc.

24. In view of the practical difficulties
pointed out, it is further clarified that the
list of defects pertaining to the affidavits
shall not be raised by the Stamp Reporting
Section in respect of petitions which are
supported by affidavits sworn before the
Notary Public.

25. Let a copy of this order be
circulated by the Registrar General/Senior
Registrar of this Court to the Stamp
Reporting Section to ensure the compliance
with directions that any violation would
result in proceedings for contempt.

26. Coming to the second question
with regard to the photo identification, the
prescriptions as have taken place in the
form of amendments are owing their
genesis from Chapter IV Rule 3 of the
Allahabad High Court Rules, however, it is
5 All. M/s Rajdhani Inter State Transport Co. New Delhi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
939
high time in the era where the efforts are to
promote digital India, continuing with a
regressive practice of the litigants traveling
from far off places solely for photo
identification
is
on
the
face
of
it
retrogressive. The same has also resulted in
the High Court Bar Association as well as
Oudh Bar Association charging amounts
beyond the sanction of law solely based
upon resolutions, and continuation of such
practice is neither desirable nor does it goes
augur well for the temple of justice which
is to function with the active help of Bar
Associations
in
furtherance
of
the
constitutional goal of providing access to
justice to all.

27. In view thereof and considering
the laudable efforts taken by the High
Court of Kerala, let the matter be placed
before the Hon'ble Chief Justice to
consider taking steps on the administrative
side for suitably modifying the rules, as
may be advised, so that the litigants do not
suffer.

28. On perusal of the Allahabad High
Court Rules, it is clear that Chapter IV Rule
1 prescribes for Appointment of Oath
Commissioner
and
swearing
of
the
affidavits; Chapter IX Rule 8 prescribed for
documents
which
are
to
accompany
memorandum of appeal and writ petition;
Chapter XI Rule 3 prescribes for the office
report empowering the Registry to specify
the defects that are specified in Chapter XI
Rule 3 Clause (a) to (f).

29. Curiously enough, Chapter XXII
which deals with Writ Petitions under Art.
226 and Art. 227 of Constitution, do not
confer
any
power
upon
the
Stamp
Reporting Section to point out the defects
apart from what are mentioned in Chapter
XXII Rule 1, Clause (2) of Rule 1, Clause
(3) of Rule 1 & Clause (3-A) of Rule 1 (in
respect of PILs).

30. It is also essential to notice that for
E-Filings, instructions have been issued by
the High Court.

31. In the absence of any provisions
contained in the Allahabad High Court
Rules, prima-facie, the list of defects as
notified being 272 in number, also do not
appear to have any statutory basis.

32. The present issue of huge number
of defects regularly being pointed by the
Reporting Section is also required to be
placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for
his consideration and if deemed necessary,
for adopting appropriate measures.

33. Let a copy of this order be placed
before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for
consideration.

34. As regard the charging of the
amount of Rs.500/-, Shri Manoj Dwivedi,
General Secretary of Oudh Bar Association
apprises that in terms of their resolution, it
is the lawyers who are depositing the said
amounts which is thereafter paid to them in
their account. The said submission is
clearly an attempt to bypass the Division
Benches orders. Although, the High Court
Bar Associations have the power to take
steps for welfare of their members,
however, the same cannot be linked with
the quantum of litigation that is filed in the
form of petitions, applications, appeals,
etc., before this Court. Linking of the
welfare measures as argued by Shri Manoj
Dwivedi with the affidavits is clearly
impermissible and contrary to law, as such,
through this interim order, the High Court
Bar Association and the Oudh Bar
Association are directed to ensure that no
940 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
amounts
are
charged
from
the
litigants/advocates
towards
the
photo
identification at any rate whatsoever.

35. The Bar Associations would,
however, are at liberty to take such welfare
steps for their members as may be advised
but cannot be coupled with any filings
before this court.

36. Linking of the affidavits with the
amounts
collected
would
amount
to
Contempt of Court by the members of the
Governing Body of the Bar Association.

37. Let a copy of this order be sent to
the Governing Body of both the Bar
Associations for its compliance.

38. It is further directed that the
persons manning the Photo Identification
Centre, either a firm or a company, would
also be personally liable if it is brought to
the notice of this Court that any amounts
are being charged for photo identification
over and above what have been sanctioned
by the Hon'ble Chief Justice under Chapter
IV Rule 3 of the Allahabad High Court
Rules.

39. The issue stands disposed off with
the said order. The writ petition shall
continue to be listed for deciding the issue
as raised in the writ petition.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 940
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

Writ C No. 12032 of 2024

Rani Pandey & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Arun Kumar Singh, Sri Ashutosh
Upadhyay, Sri Lallan Chaubey, Ms. Shikha
Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Chandra Shekhar Singh, Sri
Dharmendra
Kumar
Shukla,
Sri
Hari
Keshav, Sonu Nirmal

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
226-Fraud
upon
the
courtimpersonation and misuse of Aadhaar
Card-A writ petition is filed claiming that
Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were legally
wedded and facing threats and they
sought police protection-On hearing date,
the Petitioner no.1 appeared in person
with her brother and denied filing the
petition
alleging
impersonation
and
misuse of her Aadhaar card-She affirmed
that she is married to one Samrat Pandey
has two children and currently lives with
her parents due to matrimonial discord-A
show-cause notice was issued to Advocate
Lallan Chaubey, named as the counsel for
petitioners,
who
denied
involvement
claiming
forgery
of
his
signature-A
preliminary inquiry was ordered through
the Registrar General and it confirmed the
petition was filed fraudulently-Both the
petitioners
denied
having
filed
the
petition-There is prima facie case of fraud
committed to mislead the court-Directions
issued to commissioner of police to
conduct inquiry, use scientific and forensic
methods to trace the fraud.(Para 1 to 19)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar, J.)

1. The present writ petition has been
filed with the assertion that Petitioner Nos.
1 and 2 are legally wedded spouses, having
solemnized their marriage on 22.02.2022 in
accordance with Hindu customs and rites at