# Moti Prasad Agrawal and others v. Prabandh Nideshak and another

- **Citation:** (2002) 2 ILRA 469
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-07-19
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27939 of 2002
- **Bench:** M. Katju, D.R. Chaudhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/moti-prasad-agrawal-and-others-v-prabandh-nideshak-and-another-39969
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Sri Avinash Misra
S.C.

Sick
Industrial
Companies
(Special
Provision)
Act
1985-
Section
22-
whether
the
provisions
for
giving
protection to the rich and wealthy
persons- but at the some time the poor
farmers- who could not repay the
amount of agriculture loan- due to
draught
or
Natural
calamity-
No
provision about any protection- as such
provisions
of
section
22
is
discriminatory-
Union
of
India
also
impleaded- for proper adjudication.

Held- Para 4

One can understand giving protection to
the poor and weak people, but the Sick
Industrial Companies (Special provision)
Act, 1985 does just the reverse by giving
protection to the rich in respect of
recoveries against than while no such
protection is available to the poor people
in respect of recoveries against them.
This is prima facie in our opinion highly
discriminatory against the poor people of
the country.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
470

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Moti Prasad Agrawal and others V. Prabandh Nideshak and another
469
10. In our opinion the submission of
learned counsel for the petitioner is
correct. The facts of the case are covered
by the Supreme Court decision in Union
of India versus Lalita Rao 2001 (5) SCC
384. The question is whether the adhoc
service is to be added to the total length of
service. Since there is no provision in the
relevant
rules
for
determining
the
seniority of the employees in service, the
principle laid down by the Supreme Court
in Direct Recruit Class II. Engineering
Officers Association versus State of
Maharasthra 1990 (2) SCC 715 have to be
followed. In that decision the Supreme
Court has held that where a person is
appointed according to the Rules his
seniority is to be computed from the date
of appointment and not from the date of
confirmation. In the present case the
petitioner
was
appointed
in
adhoc
capacity in accordance with Rule 5 of the
U.P. Subordinate Agriculture Service
1977 after selection against posts which
were advertised. Hence in our opinion the
petitioner's service from 16.2.73 to 4.5.81
has to be added to the petitioner's total
length of service for the purposes of
seniority and his position in seniority will
be fixed accordingly.

11. The writ petition is allowed. No
orders as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.7.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE D.R. CHAUDHARY, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27939 of 2002

Moti Prasad Agarwal and others

 ...Petitioners
Versus
Prabandh Nideshak, Pradesiya Industrial
and Investment Corporation of U.P. and
others

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri S.C. Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Avinash Misra
S.C.

Sick
Industrial
Companies
(Special
Provision)
Act
1985-
Section
22-
whether
the
provisions
for
giving
protection to the rich and wealthy
persons- but at the some time the poor
farmers- who could not repay the
amount of agriculture loan- due to
draught
or
Natural
calamity-
No
provision about any protection- as such
provisions
of
section
22
is
discriminatory-
Union
of
India
also
impleaded- for proper adjudication.

Held- Para 4

One can understand giving protection to
the poor and weak people, but the Sick
Industrial Companies (Special provision)
Act, 1985 does just the reverse by giving
protection to the rich in respect of
recoveries against than while no such
protection is available to the poor people
in respect of recoveries against them.
This is prima facie in our opinion highly
discriminatory against the poor people of
the country.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
470
(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. Heard Sri S.C. Tripathi for
petitioners,
Sri
Avniash
Misra
for
Respondent No. 1 and learned Standing
Counsel.

2. Petitioners are challenging the
impugned recovery and one of the
grounds taken by the petitioner who are
guarantors of the loan is that the
petitioners are entitled to the benefit of
Section
22
of
the
Sick
Industrial
Companies (special provision) Act 1985
(in short the Act). We are of the opinion
that
prima
facie
the
Act
is
unconstitutional and is violative of Article
14 of the Constitution. This Act gives
protection to the rich businessmen by
staying
the
recovery
against
them
whenever they bring their company
before the B.I.F.R.

3. The poor people of the country do
not get any such protection against their
recoveries. For example if a poor peasant
has taken a loan for seeds, fertiliser, etc.
and if his crop fails e.g. for lack of
monsoons, recovery is issued against him
and his land is sold in pursuance of the
recovery and even his personal assets may
be sold, but this will not be done with
regard to companies because they can go
to the B.I.F.R. and get protection of
Section 22 of the Act.

4. One can understand giving
protection to the poor and weak people,
but the sick Industrial Companies (special
provision) Act, 1985 does just the reverse
by giving protection to the rich in respect
of recoveries against them, while no such
protection is available to the poor people
in respect of recoveries against them. This
is prima facie in our opinion highly
discriminatory against the poor people of
the country.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
is permitted to implead the Union of
India. Learned counsel for Union of India
will intimate the learned Attorney General
of India about this order.

6. List on 12.8.2002 before us by
which time parties may exchange the
affidavits.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 5TH JULY, 2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.K. SEN, C.J.
THE HON'BLE S.R. ALAM, J.
THE HON'BLE V.M. SAHAI, J.

Writ Petition (Tax) No. 504 of 2002

Brij Bhushan Chaudhari and others

 ...Petitioners
Versus
State
of
U.P.
through
Excise
Commissioner, Allahabad and others

 ...Respondents

Counsels for the Petitioners:
Sri Hemant Kumar
Sri P.P. Srivastava
Sri Bharatji Agrwal
Sri Mukesh Prasad
Sri H.P. Srivastava
Sri Arun Tandon

Counsels for the Respondents:
Sri Ashok Mehta
Sri Rakesh Dwivedi
S.C.

U.P. Excise Act- Section 36 A- The
petitioners do not have any fundamental
right to trade or business in liquor;