# Natha Ram Pathak v. Director, Prashikshan Evam Sevayojan U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2004) 2 ILRA 602
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2004-08-19
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33529 of 2004
- **Bench:** Arun Tandon
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/natha-ram-pathak-v-director-prashikshan-evam-sevayojan-u-p-and-others-40270
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Consolidation of Holdings Act-S.9-Writ
Jurisdiction-Exercise of-Petitioners made
persistent attempts to continue their
illegal
possession
over
gaon
sabha
property-present
petition
again
is
desperate attempt to encroach upon
court's precious time by vexations plea
which did not find favour with this
Court-Hence
costs
of
Rs.10,000/-
imposed on petitioners-held liable to pay
mesne profits.

Held: Para 6

Before parting, I feel constrained to
notice that in the instant case, there is
enough indication that the petitioners
have
made
persistent
attempts
to
continue their illegal possession over the
Gaon Sabha Property despite repeated
failures upto the Apex Court. The present
petition is again a desperate attempt to
encroach upon Court's precious time by
vexatious plea which did not find favour
with this Court. In my considered view, it
is a pre-eminently fit case in which the
petitioners should be visited with costs
which I quantify at Rs.10,000/-. The

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
602
after 10 years' stay at one particular place
may be a premium for the Doctors for
flourishing their Nursing Homes at the
place of their service or serving in the
Private Nursing Homes to the disadvantage of the society as a whole. The
transfer policy framed by the State
Government may be counter-productive
of its desired aims. It is strange that the
appellants have a grievance against a
discriminatory policy framed by the State
Government, which is totally to their
advantage and discriminatory against all
other employees and against the public
interest. Thus, seeing the present state of
affairs in the Medical Service, we have no
hesitation to say that 10 years' stay policy
may be counter-productive.

21. As the Division Bench of this
Court has already held that the said
directions are only recommendatory, we
see no reason to take a view contrary to
the same. Appeal is devoid of any merit.
The facts of the appeal do not warrant any
interference. It is accordingly dismissed.
Appeal Dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.08.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33529 of 2004

Natha Ram Pathak

...Petitioner
Versus
Director, Prashikshan Evam Sevayojan,
U.P. Lucknow and others ...Respondents

Constitution
of
India-Art.
226-Order
directing
representation
to
be
filed
within two weeks and decide same
within three weeks. Not mandatory-High
Court's order, held, cannot be read as
prescribing
limitation
for
filing
representation- Nor is it open to Director
to reject the representation on ground
that same has been filed beyond two
weeks.

Held: Para 5

However, in the opinion of the Court, the
order dated 17.11.2003, passed by this
Court, cannot be read as limitation
prescribing
limitation
for
filing
the
representation nor it is open to Director
to reject the representation on the
ground that the same has not been filed
beyond two weeks.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.)

1. Heard Sri Pankaj Agrawal
Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and
Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of
the respondents 1 and 3.

2. It is not necessary to issue notice
to Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 in view of the
order proposed to be passed by this Court
today.

3. The petitioner has filed present
writ petition against the order of the
Director, Prashikshan Evam Sevayojan,
U.P. Lucknow dated 15th July, 2004,
whereby the objections filed by the
petitioner in pursuance of the order of this
Court dated 17.11.2003, passed in Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No. 7830 of 2003
have been rejected only on the ground
that the same has not been filed within
two weeks as was directed under order of
this Court dated 17.11.2003, which has
been enclosed as Annexure-10 to the writ
petition.

4. From the order passed by this
Court, it is apparently clear that the
direction to file the representation within
two weeks was issued in view of the
further direction that the representation
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Natha Ram Pathak V. Director, Prashikshan Evam Sevayojan U.P. and others
603
shall be decided within three weeks from
the date it is filed by the respondent.
Thus, if the representation has not been
filed by the petitioner within two weeks
as was required under order of this Court
dated 17.11.2003, the further direction for
deciding the representation within three
weeks seized to mandatory and it is open
to authority concerned to decide the
representation without there being any
time limit for the same.

5. However, in the opinion of the
Court, the order dated 17.11.2003, passed
by this Court, cannot be read as limitation
prescribing limitation for filing the
representation nor it is open to Director to
reject the representation on the ground
that the same has not been filed beyond
two weeks.

6. In the facts and circumstances of
the case, the order passed by the Director,
Prashikshan
Evam
Sevayojan,
U.P.
Lucknow dated 15th July, 2004 is hereby
set aside and the matter is remanded to the
Director, Prashikshan Evam Sevayojan,
U.P.
Lucknow
to
decide
the
representation
afresh
strictly
in
accordance with law at the earliest
possible.

7. It is needless to point out that the
Director shall afford opportunity of
hearing to the parties concerned before
taking a decision and shall pass a
reasoned order.

With the above observations, writ
petition stands disposed of.
Petition Disposed of.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.08.2004

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

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2501 of 1994

Shoeb Alam and others ...Petitioners
Versus
The Deputy Director of Consolidation and
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri R.N. Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.K. Singh
Sri S.N. Singh
Sri K.B. Garg
S.C.

Consolidation of Holdings Act-S.9-Writ
Jurisdiction-Exercise of-Petitioners made
persistent attempts to continue their
illegal
possession
over
gaon
sabha
property-present
petition
again
is
desperate attempt to encroach upon
court's precious time by vexations plea
which did not find favour with this
Court-Hence
costs
of
Rs.10,000/-
imposed on petitioners-held liable to pay
mesne profits.

Held: Para 6

Before parting, I feel constrained to
notice that in the instant case, there is
enough indication that the petitioners
have
made
persistent
attempts
to
continue their illegal possession over the
Gaon Sabha Property despite repeated
failures upto the Apex Court. The present
petition is again a desperate attempt to
encroach upon Court's precious time by
vexatious plea which did not find favour
with this Court. In my considered view, it
is a pre-eminently fit case in which the
petitioners should be visited with costs
which I quantify at Rs.10,000/-. The