# Mohan Lal and others v. State of U.P. and another

- **Citation:** (2001) 2 ILRA 29
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2001
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohan-lal-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-39918
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

2All] Mohan Lal and others V. State of U.P. and another

persons aggrieved is non statutory and
purely contractual and the rights are
governed only by the terms of the
contract, no writ or order can be issued
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India so as to compel the authorities to
remedy a breach of contract pure and
simple.

7. In view of the principles
enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the aforementioned case, it must be
held that the writ jurisdiction under
Article 226 of Constitution of India could
not be invoked by the petitioner for
enforcing the contract between him and
the respondent-Allahabad Development
Authority.

8. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled
to the relief claimed in the petition.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed, but
without any order as to costs.
Petition Dismissed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
'$7(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 6. $*$5:$/ -
7+( +21·%/( 6. $*$5:$/ -

&ULPLQDO 0LVF $SSOLFDWLRQ 1R RI

0RKDQ /DO DQG RWKHUV
«$SSOLFDQWV
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 DQG DQRWKHU «5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH $SSOLFDQWV
6KUL 6DUYHVK
6KUL 9LPOHVK .XPDU
&RXQVHO IRU 2SSRVLWH SDUWLHV
$*$
6KUL 56 3DULKDU

&ULPLQDO 3URFHGXUH &RGH ± 6HFWLRQ ±
ILQGLQJ RI WKH &LYLO &RXUW ZLOO RSHUDWH DV
FRQFOXVLYH
SURRI
RI
WKHVH
IDFWV
DQG
DOOHJDWLRQV LQ D FULPLQDO SURFHHGLQJ ,Q
WKH DEVHQFH RI WKLV SURRI LW LV LPSRVVLEOH
IRU WKLV &RXUW WR KROG WKDW SURFHHGLQJV
TXDVKLQJ RI ZKLFK KDV EHHQ VRXJKW E\
WKH DSSOLFDQWV WKURXJK WKLV SHWLWLRQ DUH
HLWKHU PDODILGH RU DQ DEXVH RI SURFHVV RI
WKH FRXUW WR FRHUFH WKH DSSOLFDQWV KHOG
LQ SDUD
7KH
DOOHJDWLRQV
PDGH
LQ
WKH
ILUVW
LQIRUPDWLRQ UHSRUW ZHUH IRXQG WUXH 2Q
WKH
DEVLV
RI
LQYHVWLJDWLRQ
DQG
WKH
HYLGHQFH FROOHFWHG E\ WKH SROLFH FKDUJH
VKHHW XOWLPDWHO\ ZDV VXEPLWWHG DJDLQVW
WKH DSSOLFDQWV ,Q WKHVH FLUFXPVWDQFHV ,
ILQG QR JURXQG WR DFFHSW WKH FRQWHQWLRQ
RI WKH OHDUQHG FRXQVHO IRU WKH DSSOLFDQWV
WKDW WKLV SURFHHGLQJV ZDV PDODILGH RU
DEXVH RI SURFHVV RI WKH FRXUW

By the Court

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicants and learned AGA.

2. I have perused the annexures filed
along with the affidavit filed in support of
the application as well as counter affidavit
and the judgement delivered by Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Chtrakoot against
the applicant Krishna Mohan in a suit
filed by him seeking divorce under
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act
from the daughter of respondent no. 2.

3. The allegations in the first
information report are that the bride after
the marriage is solemnised is not sent to
the bridgroom's house according to
custom prevalent in their society. She is
sent there after gauna ceremony is
performed. After some days of the
marriage the informant has learnt thourhg
Mohan Lal and Diwanpal residents of
Bhawanipur that her husband and father-
30 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
in-law
are
demanding
a
sum
of
Rs.50,000/- as price for performing the
gauna ceremony. On the failure of the
informant to do so the applicants had
declined to perform this second marriage
ceremony and take his daughter to their
house. When the informant along with his
villagemen visited their house the demand
of Rs.50,000/- was repeated and they
were turned out of their house by the
applicants
after
abusing
them.
On
22.03.1998 the informant conducted a
panchayat
of
his
community
at
Chitrakoot.
The
applicant
were
summoned there by the panchayat and
their conduct was condemned by the
panchayat. On 05.09.1998 these persons
visited the village of the informant, they
stayed at the outskirt of the village and
sent
for
the
informant.
When
the
informant along with some villagers
reached there he was abused and he was
told by the applicants that what have you
gained by conducting panchayat and
unless the claimed price for performing
gauna ceremony is paid they are not
taking his daughter to their house. They
had also threatened to eliminate the entire
family. These are the allegations made in
the first information report.

4. A perusal of the plaint filed by
applicant no. 3 Krishna Mohan claiming
divorce from his wife clearly shows that
he had no sense of decency. Wild
allegation of his wife having carried in
her womb a child without performance of
gauna ceremony was levelled against her.
It was further stated that she had under
gone the process of abortion. She was
also, according to paragraph 7 under went
virginity test and the test proved her
leading on immoral life. On these
allegations he had sought divorce from his
wife Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit
is the judgement delivered by Civil Court,
Senior Division, Chitrakoot against the
applicant
Krishna
Mohan
Following
issues were framed in the suit against this
applicant. First issue was whether the girl
show in marriage was one and the same,
the photograph of which was made
available to the father of applicant no.3.
The second issue is whether Sushila Devi
was carrying a child in her womb before
the marriage. The third issue was whether
Sushil Devi is a woman of easy virtue.
The fourth issue was with regard to the
relief to which the applicant was entitled.
So far as issue nos. 1,2 and 3 are
concerned they were answered in the
negative by the civil court. These finding
of the civil court will operate as
conclusive proof of these facts and
allegation in a criminal proceeding. In the
absence of this proof it is impossible for
this Court to hold that proceedings,
quashing of which has been south by the
applicants through this petition, are either
malafide or an abuse of process of the
court to coerce the applicants. The
allegations made in the first information
report were found true. On the basis of
investigation and the evidence collected
by the police charge sheet ultimately was
submitted against applicants. In these
circumstances I find no ground to accept
the contention of the learned counsel for
the applicants that this proceedings was
malafide or abuse of process of the court.

5. The application is accordingly
dismissed.

Application Dismissed.
2All] Ganesha V. District Magistrate, Mahoba and another

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 6. 6(1 &-
7+( +21·%/( 6. 6(1 &-
7+( +21·%/( 65 $/$0 -
7+( +21·%/( 65 $/$0 -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

*DQHVKD
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
'LVWULFW 0DJLVWUDWH 0DKRED DQG DQRWKHU
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL 5DMHVK .XPDU
6KUL MDL 6LQJK &KDQGHO
&RXQVHO IRU 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&
6KUL &6 6LQJK

&RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD $UWLFOH UHDG
ZLWK
83
6FKHGXOHG
&RPPRGLWLHV
'HDOHUV
/LFHQVLQJ
DQG 5HVWULFWLRQ RI
+RDUGLQJ 2UGHU ± QDWXUDO -XVWLFH
±9LRODWLRQ± SHWLWLRQHU LV D OLFHQFH KROGHU
LQ
UHVSHFW
RI
VFKHGXOHG
FRPPRGLWLHV
XQGHU
WKH
VDLG
2UGHU
±
&DQFHOODWLRQ6XVSHQVLRQ
RI
OLFHQFH
LQ
YLRODWLRQ RI SULQFLSOHV RI QDWXUDO MXVWLFH
ZLWKRXW
DIIRUGLQJ
DQ\
RSSRUWXQLW\
RI
KHDULQJ DV FRQWHPSODWHG XQGHU FODXVH
 SURYLVR
+HOG ± 3DUDV DQG
,W LV WKXV DSSDUHQW WKDW SURYLVR WR VXE
FODXVH RI FODXVH RI WKH &RQWURO
2UGHU
FRQWHPSODWHV
RSSRUWXQLW\
RI
KHDULQJ WR EH JLYHQ WR WKH OLFHQVHH LI DQ\
RUGHU IRU FDQFHOODWLRQ RU VXVSHQVLRQ RI
KLV OLFHQFH LV PDGH
,Q WKH LQVWDQW FDVH VLQFH RQ WKH IDFH RI
WKH LPSXJQHG RUGHU LWVHOI LW DSSHDUV WKDW
QR RSSRUWXQLW\ RI KHDULQJ ZDV JLYHQ WR
WKH SHWLWLRQHU 7KHUHIRUH ZH DUH RI WKH
YLHZ
WKDW
WKH
VDLG
RUGHU
LV
QRW
LQ
FRQIRUPLW\ ZLWK WKH SURYLVR WR FODXVH
 RI WKH &RQWURO 2UGHU DQG DV
VXFK WKH VDPH FDQQRW EH VXVWDLQHG

By the Court

1. We have heard learned counsel
for the parties.

2. The writ petitioner is holder of
licence
in
respect
of
scheduled
commodities
under
U.P.
Scheduled
Commodities
Dealers
(Licensing
and
Restriction of Hoarding) Order, 1989
(hereinafter referred to as the "Control
Order") His contention is that his licence
was suspended without giving him any
opportunity of hearing. It appears from
the impugned order itself that the order
was passed on the basis of certain enquiry
by the District magistrate, but no
opportunity of hearing appears to have
been given. In this connection, we may
take note of proviso to sub-clause (2) of
Clause 8 of the Control Order, which
reads as under:

"8. Contravention of conditions of
licence - (1)........

(2) if the licensing authority is
satisfied that any such licensee or his
agent or servant or any other person
acting on his behalf has contravened any
provision of this order or the terms and
conditions of the licence, it may without
prejudice to any another action that may
be taken against him, by order in writing
cancel or suspend his licence either in
respect of all scheduled commodities
covered by it or in respect of such of these
commodities as it may think fit:

Provided that no order shall be made
under this sub-clause unless the licensee
has been given a reasonable opportunity