# Mewa Ram and another v. State of U.P. and another - **Citation:** (2002) 1 ILRA 161 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2001-12-06 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39189 of 2001 - **Bench:** Anjani Kumar - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mewa-ram-and-another-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-39768 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Code of Criminal Procedure- Section - 207 Framing of charges by Fast Track Court without giving the copy of statement- despite of demand. Held not proper- approach of the Court highly deprecable. Held - Para 5 In the circumstances, the accused is entitled to the statement of the informant (complainant), who is a material witness in the case. The approach of the trial court appears to be extremely highhanded in not providing that statement before framing the charge. Such an approach is highly deprecable and is not seen with any compassion. The trial court is, there fore, directed to act within the precinct of law and be not unnecessarily arbitrary and authoritative ignoring the provisions law. ## Text 1All] Mewa Ram & another V. State of U.P. through Shiksha Sachiv(Basic) & another 161 appropriate Regularisation Rules either by amending the existing Rules or otherwise. In the result, therefore, the petitions fail and are dismissed with costs on parties subject, of course, to above observations. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD DECEMBER 6, 2001 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39189 of 2001 Mewa Ram and another ...Petitioners Versus State of U.P. and another ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Syed Wajid Ali Counsel for the Respondents: S.C. Constitution of India, Article 226- Selection for special B.T.C.- Rejection on candidature on the ground they have obtained B.Ed. Degree from Kumaun University which out of state of U.P.- held not proper Kumaun University still governs with the Provisions of U.P. State Universities Act 1975 apart from law laid down by the Court reported in 2000 (2) UPLBEC-1340. Held - Para 4 In this regard, two factors are relevant to be kept in mind, first that Kumaun University, Nainital is still regulated and governed by the provisions of U.P.State Universities Act, 1975 and secondly in view of the law laid down by this (sic) in the case of Upendra Rai Versus State of U.P. and others, reported in 2000 (Vol.2) U.P. L.B.E.C. 1340, even assuming that petitioner Mewa Ram has passed his B.Ed. Degree from an University outside State of U.P., which is established under law, his application form can not be declared as not maintainable as this condition has been held to be ultra vires by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case of Upendra Rai (supra). (Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.) 1. Heard Sri Syed Wajid Ali, learned, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents. 2. This petition has been filed by two petitioners, namely, Mewa Ram and Mahipal Singh for the relief that their applications for selection for Special BTC pursuance to the advertisement dated 14.8.2001,Annexure-5 to the writ petition, as amended from time to time may not be rejected only on the ground that the petitioners, who have passed their B. Ed. course from Kumayun University, which now from part of Uttaranchal State. 3. It is submitted that petitioner no. 2 has passed his B.Ed. examination in the year 1999. At that time, State of Uttaranchal has not come into existence, which came into existence in the month of November, 2000 by U.P. State Reorganisation Act, 2000, therefore at that time the petitioner no.2 who has passed his B.Ed. course from Kumaun University. Nainital can not be said to be passed the degree from an University situated outside the State of U.P. and in this view of the matter his application can not be rejected on the ground that he has not passed his B.Ed. degree from an University situated within the State of U.P. INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002 162 4. Coming to the case of petitioner no.1 Mewa Ram, who is said to have passed his B.Ed. degree from Kumaun University, Nainital in the year 2001. The result of B.Ed. examination, according to the assertion made by the petitioner was declared before the month of July, 2001. At that time the State of Uttaranchal has come into existence, therefore the petitioner can not claim that he has passed his B.Ed. degree from an University situated in State of U.P.. In this regard, two factors are relevant to be kept in mind, first that Kumaun University, Nainital is still regulated and governed by the provisions of U.P. State Universities Act, 1975 and secondly in view of the law laid down by this (sic) in the case of Upendra Rai Versus State of U.P. and others, reported in 2000 (Vol.2) U.P.L.B.E.C. 1340, even assuming that petitioner Mewa Ram has passed his B.Ed. degree from an University outside State of U.P., which is established under law, his application form can not be declared as not maintainable as this condition has been held to be ultra vires by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case of Upendra Rai (supra). In this view of the matter, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed to accept and consider the application forms of the petitioners for the Special B.T.C. training and recruitment pursuant to the advertisement for which they have applied and their application forms shall not be rejected only on the ground that they have not passed their B.Ed. degree course from an University situated within the State of U.P. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is finally disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. --------- REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD JANUARY 3,2002 BEFORE THE HON'BLE S.K. AGARWAL, J. Criminal Revision No. 9 of 2002 Suresh Kumar Upadhayay and another ...Revisionists Versus State of U.P. and another ...Respondents Counsel for the Revisionists: Sri S.S. Tripathi Sri A.P. Tiwari Counsel for the Respondents: A.G.A. Code of Criminal Procedure- Section - 207 Framing of charges by Fast Track Court without giving the copy of statement- despite of demand. Held not proper- approach of the Court highly deprecable. Held - Para 5 In the circumstances, the accused is entitled to the statement of the informant (complainant), who is a material witness in the case. The approach of the trial court appears to be extremely highhanded in not providing that statement before framing the charge. Such an approach is highly deprecable and is not seen with any compassion. The trial court is, there fore, directed to act within the precinct of law and be not unnecessarily arbitrary and authoritative ignoring the provisions law. (Delivered by Hon'ble S.K. Agarwal, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A.