# Notification has been published by the State Government, Specifying the Court of

- **Citation:** C.L.No.42/1D/Admin.A-3
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 1998-04-07
- **Case number:** C.L.No.42/1D/Admin.A-3
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/notification-has-been-published-by-the-state-government-specifying-the-court-of-162855
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

52
Notification has been published by the State Government, Specifying the Court of
Human Rights under section 30 of the Protecting of Human Rights Act, 1993, I.e.
25.9.1995 and the special court/ designated court cannot take cognizance directly and it
can take cognizance only after the cases has been committed to the court of sessions.

 Necessary steps in the matter be taken accordingly.
2.
NORMS
FIXED
BY
THE
COURT
IN
THE
MATTER
OF
ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW COURTS AT NEW PLACES
C.L. No.C-12/DR(S), dated 28 February, 1995
In the matter of setting up of new courts the Hon'ble Chief Justice and Hon'ble
Judges have been pleased to decide, as a matter of policy, that the setting up of a court at
a new place of posting shall not be considered unless:
(a)
The work load justifies the setting up of at least two courts;
(b)
Government owned requisite accommodation as per norms laid down by
the High Court, including chambers for lawyers, is made available for the
setting up of at least one court;
(c)
Government residential accommodation for Judicial Officers as also
employees of the court is made available.
The above norms are being communicated for information and necessary action.
Recommendations for establishment of new courts be made only if the above-referred
norms are satisfied.
(i)
Hearing of cases pending in Varanasi Judgeship relating to the cases of
Jurisdiction of new Judgeship Bhadohi at Gyanpur.
C.L.No.42/1D/Admin.A-3, Dated: 25th September, 1997
 I am directed to say that the District Judge, Varanasi has made a request to the
court for obtaining the orders/directions of the court in the matter of hearing of case
pending in Varanasi Judgeship relating to the cases of jurisdiction of new JudgeshipBhadohi at Gyanpur and on consideration of the matter the court has been pleased to
order that at the event of bifurcation of the District/ Judgeship on account of creation of
new Judgeships the case, in which the cognizance has already been taken by the existing
courts, will not be transferred to the newly created Judgeship and the existing-courts
would continue to hear the case for which the cognizance had already been taken by
them.
 I am, therefore, to request you that the order of the court, as aforesaid be
complied with if the situation so arises.
(ii)
Establishment of debts Recovery Tribunal at Jabalpur (M.P.)
C.L.No.49/ Admin dated 9th September, 1998

Government of India (Department of economic Affairs) (Baking Division) vide
Notification No.GSR/181 (E) dated April 7 1998 published in THE GAZETTE OF
INDIA EXTRA ORDINARY under part II Section 3(i) whereby Debts Recovery
Tribunal has been established to exercise Jurisdiction within the area of the State of
53
Madhya Paradesh and Utter Paradesh, under Section 3 of the recovery of Debts Dues of
Bank and financial Institution Act, 1993 (Act 51 of 1993). As per the provisions of
Section 1 (4) read with Sec. 17 Act ibid, the Dues Recovery tribunal Jabalpur from the
appointed date (i.e.7-4-98) has been empowered to exercise jurisdiction powers and
authority to entertain and decide the applications/suits from the Banks and Financial
Institutions for recovery of debt dues to such Banks and Financial Institutions where the
amount of debts due to the Bank/Financial Institution is Rs. 10 laces and above. Further
section 18 of the Act envisages that from the appointed date no court or other authority
shall or be entitled to exercise any jurisdiction, power or authority (excepting the
Supreme Court High Court exercising Jurisdiction under Article226 and 227 of the
constitution) in relating to the matter.

You are therefore required to transfer all the applications/suits filed by Bank and
Financial Institutions for recovery of debts due to Bank and Financial Institution of the
valuation of Rs. 10 laces and above to the Debts recovery Tribunal Jabalpur (M.P.).
(iii)
Extension of the term of temporary 04 Additional Special Courts/Posts of
Special Judges, Anti Corruption of CBI, at Lucknow and 02 Additional
Special Courts/Posts of Special Judges, Anti Corruption of CBI, Ghaziabad.
No. 1770/Main-B/Admin.(A-3) dated 29.01.2011

I have been directed to say that vide Government's Order No. 1532/VII-Nyay-22010-167-G/2009, dated 26.10.2010, the Government have been created the term of
temporary 04 Additional Special Courts/Posts of Special Judges, Anti Corruption, at
Lucknow and 02 Additional Special Courts/Posts of Special Judges, Anti Corruption,
Ghaziabad alongwith necessary staff for trying the cases investigated by CBI in the State
of Uttar Pradesh.

The term of aforesaid temporary Special Courts/Posts along with staff have been
extended up to 28.02.2011 vide the aforesaid Government Order No. 1532/VII-Nyay-22010-167G/2009, dated 26.10.2010.

It is necessary in the public interest to extend the term of aforesaid temporary
Special Courts/Posts alongwith staff in the State of Uttar Pradesh, for a further period of
one year more w.e.f. 1.3.2011 to 29.02.2012 with usual contingent grants, etc.

I am, therefore, to request you kindly to move the Government for obtaining
necessary orders regarding extension of the term of the above mentioned temporary 04
Additional Special Courts/posts of Special Judges, Anti Corruption of CBI at Lucknow
02 Additional Special Courts/Posts of Anti Corruption of CBI, at Ghaziabad for one year
more i.e. w.e.f. 1.3.2011 to 29.02.2012 alongwith necessary staff with usual contingent
grants, etc. and orders so obtained may kindly be communicated to the Court, at the
earliest.
(iv)
Extension of the term of the temporary Courts/Posts of Additional District
and Sessions Judge at Bareilly, Meerut, Lucknow, Varanasi & Gorakhpur
for trying the pending cases of Vigilance Bureau at Commissionerate level
under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
54
No. 1784/Main-B/Admin.(A-3) dated 29.01.2011

I have been directed to say that by the Government's Order No. 3246/VII-Nyaya2-2000-332(G)/91, dated 24.02.1995, the above mentioned five courts/posts of
Additional District and Sessions Judges, one in each district i.e. Bareilly, Meerut,
Lucknow, Varanasi & Gorakhpur alongwith staff have been created for trial of cases in
regard to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Act No. 49 of 1988) instituted by the
Uttar Pradesh Vigilance establishment constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Vigilance
establishment Act, 1965 (U.P. Act No. 7 of 1965), Anti Corruption Organization in the
criminal investigation Department of Uttar Pradesh and Vigilance Cell of Uttar Pradesh
State Electricity Board as Special Judge.

The term of aforesaid temporary Special Courts/posts of Additional District &
Sessions Judges alongwith staff was lastly extended up to 28.02.2010 vide Government
letter no. 3919/VII-Nyaya-2-2008-332(G)/91TC; dated 30.03.2009.

It is to inform you that the extension of the term of temporary Special Court of
Additional District and Sessions Judges, one in each district i.e. Bareilly, Meerut,
Lucknow, Varanasi & Gorakhpur alongwith staff for the period from 1.3.2010 to
28.02.2011, as desired vide Court's letter no. 14805/Main-B/Admin.(A-3), dated
6.11.2009 (copy enclosed for ready reference) and its subsequent reminder letters dated
22.2.2010 & 22.3.2010, has not been received in the office of the Court, as yet.

It is therefore, necessary in the public interest to extend the term of temporary
Special Courts/posts of Additional District and Sessions Judges, one in each district i.e.
Bareilly, Meerut, Lucknow, Varanasi & Gorakhpur alongwith staff for a further period of
two years w.e.f. 1.3.2010 to 29.02.2012 with usual contingent grants, etc.

I am, therefore, to request you kindly to move the Government for obtaining
necessary orders for extension of the term of above mentioned temporary Special
Courts/Posts of Additional District and Sessions Judges, one in each district i.e. Bareilly,
Meerut, Lucknow, Varanasi & Gorakhpur alongwith the necessary staff with usual
contingent grants, etc. From 1.3.2010 to 29.02.2012. The orders so obtained in the above
mater may kindly be communicated to the Court, at the earliest.
3. CLOSING OF COURTS
Local festivals
C. L. No. 68/Xe-4, dated 26th July, 1980

The principle of uniformity in the observance of local holidays should be
observed in the Civil, Criminal and Revenue Courts. The holidays on account of local
festivals shall be determined and declared by the District Judge and the District
Magistrate of the district in consultation. The Subordinate Civil Courts shall be closed
only if the Revenue Courts are closed on account of any local festival.

No reference to the High Court in this connection is necessary.
During an epidemic
G. L. No. 946, dated 1st March, 1930, 75-23 of 1930