# Mehndi Hasan v. D.D.C., Siddharth Nagar and others

- **Citation:** (2006) 1 ILRA 281
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-03-20
- **Bench:** S.N. Srivstava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mehndi-hasan-v-d-d-c-siddharth-nagar-and-others-40660
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Sri B.K. Srivastava
Sri R.K. Chitragupt
Sri P.P. Chaudhary
S.C.

U.P. Consolidation of Holding Art 1953Section
48-Revisional
Power-Chak
allotment-Petition's chak not disturbed
upto S.O.C. stage-while considering the
revision the DDE excluded Plot no. 259,
430 from chak and given totally, 'Udan'
chak over plot no. 51 without application
of mind based non spiking order-held
Liable to be quashed.

Held: Para 3

On consideration of the entire materials
on record and impugned orders of
Deputy Director of Consolidation and
Settlement Officer Consolidation, it is
clearly borne out that the orders are
without
any
reason
and
without
application of mind to the grievance of
the parties. Appellate order is also
282 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
without application of mind and is a nonspeaking order. As both the appellate as
well as revisional authorities have not
considered the grievance of the parties
and orders are not speaking order same
are liable to be quashed on this ground
alone.

## Text

1 All] Mehndi Hasan V. D.D.C., Siddharth Nagar and others
281
"(a) For each region there shall be a
Selection Committee for selection of
candidates for ad hoc appointment by
direct recruitment comprising -
(i) Regional Joint Director of Education
(Secondary);
(ii) Regional
Deputy
Director
of
Education (Basic);
(iii) Regional
Assistant
Director
of
Education (Basic);

The Regional Joint Director of
Education shall be the Chairman."

Further in sub-section (9), for the
word "Commission", the word "Board"
was substituted.

10. Thus, once Section 16 of the Act
was made subject to the provisions
Section 18 of the Act by U.P. Act No. 15
of 1995 and Section 18 of the Act also
provided for a detailed procedure to be
followed while making appointments on
ad hoc basis it became imperative that the
ad hoc appointment in the present case
should have been made in accordance
with the provisions of Section 18 of the
Act. Admittedly the procedure provided
for in Section 18 of the Act was not
followed
by
the
Committee
of
Management.
The
Committee
of
Management itself had advertised the post
and the Selection Committee constituted
by it had made the recommendation. The
appointment of the petitioner as an ad hoc
teacher was, therefore, contrary to the
provisions of Section 18 of the Act. It is,
therefore, void and cannot confer any
right upon him. The relief claimed for in
this petition to grant financial approval to
the appointment of the petitioner on the
post of Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade),
therefore, cannot be granted.

11. The Writ Petition is accordingly
dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.
Petition dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.03.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.N. SRIVSTAVA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 68245 Of
2005

Mehndi Hasan

...Petitioner
Versus
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation,
Siddharth Nagar & others...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Tripathi B.G. Bhai

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri B.K. Srivastava
Sri R.K. Chitragupt
Sri P.P. Chaudhary
S.C.

U.P. Consolidation of Holding Art 1953Section
48-Revisional
Power-Chak
allotment-Petition's chak not disturbed
upto S.O.C. stage-while considering the
revision the DDE excluded Plot no. 259,
430 from chak and given totally, 'Udan'
chak over plot no. 51 without application
of mind based non spiking order-held
Liable to be quashed.

Held: Para 3

On consideration of the entire materials
on record and impugned orders of
Deputy Director of Consolidation and
Settlement Officer Consolidation, it is
clearly borne out that the orders are
without
any
reason
and
without
application of mind to the grievance of
the parties. Appellate order is also
282 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
without application of mind and is a nonspeaking order. As both the appellate as
well as revisional authorities have not
considered the grievance of the parties
and orders are not speaking order same
are liable to be quashed on this ground
alone.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.N. Srivastava, J.)

1. This writ petition is directed
against the order dated 23.9.2005 passed
by Deputy Director of Consolidation,
Siddharth Nagar, allowing revision and
making certain amendment in chak of the
petitioner and contesting Opposite Party
Nos. 2,3 and 4 in the proceeding of
allotment of Chak.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. From perusal of the record, it
transpires that Opposite Party no. 4 filed a
time barred appeal against an order dated
25.8.2003
passed
by
Consolidation
Officer, which was allowed and chak of
Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party
No. 4 was altered, against which Opposite
Party No. 2 preferred a revision which
was allowed and petitioner's Chak was
disturbed. It is important to note from the
record that petitioner's Chak was not
disturbed upto Settlement Officer of
Consolidation stage. Opposite Party No. 2
preferred revision against an order dated
5.2.2004 passed by Settlement Officer of
Consolidation. Though, petitioner's Chak
was not disturbed up to that stage, but
while allowing revision, petitioner's Chak
was disturbed by the order of Deputy
Director of Consolidation and his original
plot no. 259 430 air was excluded from
his Chak and a totally Udan Chak on plot
no. 51 ltc was given to him. Learned
counsel
for
parties
raised
several
argument as to illegality of the order and
also that the order is non-speaking order.

3. On consideration of the entire
materials on record and impugned orders
of Deputy Director of Consolidation and
Settlement Officer Consolidation, it is
clearly borne out that the orders are
without
any
reason
and
without
application of mind to the grievance of
the parties. Appellate order is also without
application of mind and is a non-speaking
order. As both the appellate as well as
revisional authorities have not considered
the grievance of the parties and orders are
not speaking order same are liable to be
quashed on this ground alone.

4. In view of the discussions made
above, writ petition succeeds and is
allowed. Impugned order dated 23 March,
2005 passed by Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Siddharth Nagar and order
dated 5.2.2005 passed by Settlement
Officer of Consolidation are quashed. The
matter is remanded to Settlement Officer
of
Consolidation
who
shall
pass
appropriated orders in accordance with
law after giving opportunity of hearing to
parties within 3 months from the date of
production of certified copy. Petition
Allowed.
---------
1 All] M/s Bhadauria Gram Sewa Sansthan V. Asstt. Commissioner and others
283
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.01.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE R.K. AGRAWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH KRISHNA, J.
THE HON'BLE K.N. OJHA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.252 of 1994

M/s Bhadauria Gram Sewa Sansthan,
Fatehpur

...Petitioner
Versus
Assistant
Commissioner,
Sales
Tax,
Allahabad Division, Allahabad and others

...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.K.S. Chauhan
Sri Navin Sinha

Counsel for the Respondents;
Sri S.M.A. Qazmi
Sri K.M. Sahai
Sri S.P. Kesarwani
S.C.

U.P. Sales Tax (Now Trade Tax Act)
1948-Section
7-D-composite
schemelaunched by the State Govt.-investing
option from all brick kiln owners-either
to pay Tax on actual sale or purchase or
to option for giving tax in lump sum
amount-once option given-can not be
permitted to turn around or resile from
liability
on
the
ground
no
any
manufacturing activity done during the
relevant year-held-law laid down by
Division Bench in M/s Jaya Bhatta udyog
followed by other Division Bench in M/s
Durga Brick field and Jai Sharma Int
Udyog-are correct law.

Held: Para 39 & 42

The
amount
payable
under
the
composition scheme is not relatable to
any actual turnover but depends upon
the agreement under the scheme at the
option of the dealer. The dealer having
once
exercised
its
option,
cannot,
therefore, be permitted to turn around
and resile from its liability merely on the
ground that had had no turnover or had
not done any manufacturing activity
during the relevant year.

In view of the foregoing discussions, we
are of the considered opinion that the
Division Bench in the case of M/s Jaya
Bhatta
Udyog
(supra)
subsequently
followed by other Division Benches in the
case of M/s Sri Durga Brick Field and Jai
Sharma Int Udyog (supra) lay down the
correct law.
Case law discussed:
1965 (2) SCR-45
AIR 1958 SC-560
AIR 1975 SC-1121
1996 (5) SCC-740
1996 (4) SCC-704
1997 (2) SCC-183
J.T. 2000 (4) SC-77
2001 (10) ELT 513 (SC)
2000 (119) ELT 531
1980 UPTC 64-FB
W.P. No.858/90 decided on 17.7.90
1991 UPTC-510
1999 (116) 585
AIR 1983 SC-2414
2002 (3) SCC-175
2004 (9) SC-19

(Delivered by Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal, J.)

1. Disagreeing and also doubting the
correctness of the law laid down by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
M/s Jaya Bhatta Udyog v. State of U.P.
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.858 of
1990, decided on 17.7.1990), followed
subsequently by two Division Benches in
the case of M/s Sri Durga Brick Field v.
State of U.P., 1991 UPTC 510, and Jai
Sharma Int Udyog v. Deputy Collector
(Collection), Sales Tax, (1999) 116 STC
357, wherein this Court has held that once
a person elects to pay the sales tax in
lump sum under the scheme announced