# Pradeshik Chakbandikarta Sangh v. Mr. Sudhir Garg, Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Lko & anr. Opp.Parties

- **Citation:** (2023) 11 ILRA 377
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-11-28
- **Case number:** Contempt Application (Civil) No. 2385 of 2023
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pradeshik-chakbandikarta-sangh-v-mr-sudhir-garg-addl-chief-secy-prin-secy-lko-49341
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Civil Law - By earlier order, no direction
was issued against authority concerned -
It was merely recorded, that some eligible
officers had been promoted and
in
respect of remaining officers/officials,
whose
promotion
orders
not
issued,
appropriate decision would be taken after
affording them opportunity of hearing -
Any
fresh
decision
would
be
taken
expeditiously - Compliance with writ
court's order expected and resultant order
to be enclosed with fresh compliance
affidavit - Despite writ court's directions,
no appropriate steps taken by competent
authority for considerable period and even
after
contempt
notice,
competent
authority failed to take prompt and proper
steps
for
compliance
-
Prima
facie,
challenging
order
dated
10.10.2023
before Apex Court amounts to misuse of
court's process, waste of its time and
disregard of Government Order dated
31.05.2017 - Directions accordingly. (Para
6, 16)

Contempt Application pending. (E-13)

## Text

11 All. Pradeshik Chakbandikarta Sangh Vs. Mr. Sudhir Garg, Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy.
 Lko & anr.
377
community antisocial activities. It is
expedient to sanction prosecution under the
Gangster Act.

33. The expression satisfied is much narrower
than ''application of mind'. The competent authority
is not to apply his mind and satisfy himself as to
whether the material placed before him would be
sufficient for convicting the accused under the
Gangster Act. The satisfaction is confined within a
narrow domain based on the materials placed before
the competent authority, the authorities forwarding
the gang chart is satisfied that the accused should be
prosecuted under the Gangster Act. The expression
satisfaction is not satisfaction on evidence but a
prima facie satisfaction based on the representations
of the nodal authority and the district police that the
accused should be prosecuted under the Gangster
Act.

34. Rule 17 mandates that the competent
authority is bound to exercise its own independent
mind while forwarding the gang chart and should
not be on a pre-printed rubber seal gang chart. Rule
17 reads thus:

17 (1) the Competent Authority shall be bound
to exercise its own independent mind while
forwarding the gang-chart.

(2) A pre-printed rubber seal gang-chart
should not be signed by the Competent Authority;
otherwise the same shall tantamount to the fact that
the Competent Authority has not exercised its free
mind.

35. Rule 18 provides that gang chart shall be
sent only in the manner as given in Form No.1 of
these rules.

36. Rule 17 and 18 would have to be
read together. Gang chart has to be sent in
the prescribed Form No. 1. The endorsement
to be made by each of the authorities have
also been specified in Rule 16. The rule itself
prescribes and mandates a printed Form.
Rule 17 merely mandates that the competent
authority while approving the gang chart
should
not
be
swayed
by
the
recommendation of the police authorities
mechanically but should satisfy himself
independently
that
the
grounds
for
prosecution is made out. The satisfaction at
that stage is subjective and does not rest upon
any evidence. The competent authority has to satisfy
that the materials placed with the gang chart calls for
prosecution. The stage of collecting evidence follows
thereafter. The scope of judicial review is miniscule,
the accused cannot challenge the FIR without
challenging the gang chart. The question as to
whether the antisocial activities of the proposed
accused is that of a gang or gangster is a matter of
investigation."
(Emphasis supplied)

28. In the said judgment, the entire scheme of
the Act was discussed and approved.

29. It may be noted that in Ambuj Parag
Dubey (supra) also, the petitioner was an Advocate.

30. The provisions were again considered by
this Court in the case of Virendra Kasaudhan vs.
State of U.P., (2023) SCC OnLine All 1431.

31. Therefore, for the discussions
made herein above, we find that the
present petition is devoid of merits, and
is accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2023) 11 ILRA 377
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN,J.

Contempt Application (Civil) No. 2385 of 2023

Pradeshik Chakbandikarta Sangh
 ...Applicant
Versus
Mr. Sudhir Garg, Addl. Chief Secy./Prin.
Secy. Lko & anr. ...Opp.Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
378 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Abhineet Jaiswal, Shreya Jaiswal

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
--

Civil Law - By earlier order, no direction
was issued against authority concerned -
It was merely recorded, that some eligible
officers had been promoted and
in
respect of remaining officers/officials,
whose
promotion
orders
not
issued,
appropriate decision would be taken after
affording them opportunity of hearing -
Any
fresh
decision
would
be
taken
expeditiously - Compliance with writ
court's order expected and resultant order
to be enclosed with fresh compliance
affidavit - Despite writ court's directions,
no appropriate steps taken by competent
authority for considerable period and even
after
contempt
notice,
competent
authority failed to take prompt and proper
steps
for
compliance
-
Prima
facie,
challenging
order
dated
10.10.2023
before Apex Court amounts to misuse of
court's process, waste of its time and
disregard of Government Order dated
31.05.2017 - Directions accordingly. (Para
6, 16)

Contempt Application pending. (E-13)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Shri Abhineet Jaiswal,
learned counsel for petitioner and Shri
Nishant
Shukla,
learned
counsel
for
respondents.

2. Shri Abhineet Jaiswal, learned
counsel
for
petitioner
has
filed
reply/objection against the affidavit of
compliance filed by respondent no. 2 and
the same is taken on record.

3. Shri Nishant Shukla, learned
counsel for respondents has filed second
affidavit of compliance, same is taken on
record.

4. This Court has passed the order
dated 10.10.2023, which reads as under:-

"1. Heard Mr. Abhineet Jaiswal,
learned
counsel
for
the
applicantpetitioner, as well as Mr. Nishant Shukla,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel,
who has appeared for contemnor - opposite
party no. 2 and, filed affidavit of
compliance, the same is taken on record.

2. In compliance of order dated
27.09.2023, Mr. G.S. Naveen Kumar,
presently serving as Secretary Revenue and
Relief Commissioner, Government of U.P.,
who is also holding additional charge of
Consolidation Commissioner, Government
of U.P., is present in person.

3. By means of aforesaid affidavit of
compliance, Mr. Nishant Shukla has stated
that the order of the writ-Court has been
complied with. However, Mr. Abhineet
Jaiswal, has stated that he has filed an
objection against the application for grant
of time filed by the opposite party no. 2 on
25.08.2023 wherein he has stated that the
order of the writ-Court has not been
complied.

4. The aforesaid affidavit had been
filed on 21.09.2023 and was put up before
the Court on 25.09.2023, however, the
same is not traceable on record.

5. Therefore, the office is directed to
trace out the aforesaid affidavit and place
the same on record.

6. Mr. Nishant Shukla has drawn
attention of this Court towards paragraph6 of the affidavit of compliance wherein it
has
been
indicated
that
only
127
consolidators/ rectangulators were found
suitable for promotion and, further order to
that effect has been issued.
11 All. Pradeshik Chakbandikarta Sangh Vs. Mr. Sudhir Garg, Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy.
 Lko & anr.
379

7. Referring the aforesaid submission,
attention of this Court has been drawn
towards
Annexure
CA-1
which
is
minute/order
of
promotion.
The
recommendation of committee, which is at
running page-142 of the affidavit of
compliance, makes it clear that some
eligible officers have been promoted in
terms of the order of the writ-Court and,
for remaining officers/officials, appropriate
exercise would be undertaken strictly in
accordance with law by affording an
opportunity
of
hearing
to
those
officers/officials.

8. As per Mr. Nishant Shukla relevant
order, in compliance of order of the writCourt, would be issued expeditiously.

9. Since the affidavit, so filed by Mr.
Abhineet Jaiswal, is not traceable on
record and, from perusal of affidavit of
compliance filed today, it appears that
some more exercise is to be undertaken for
making compliance of the order of the writCourt in its letter and spirit regarding those
employees who have not been promoted, let
this matter be listed on 28.11.2023 within
top ten cases of the cause-list.

10. On or before 28.11.2023, Mr.
Nishant Shukla shall file a fresh affidavit of
compliance, apprising this Court as to what
decision has been taken regarding other
employees in respect of their promotion in
terms of the order of the writ-Court.

11. In the meantime, Mr. Abhineet
Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicantpetitioner, may file reply/objection to the
affidavit of compliance, which has been
filed today.

12. On the next date of listing, the
officer, who is present in person today, need
not appear again. However, it is made clear
that if on the next date of listing it is found
that the order of the writ-Court has not
been complied in its letter and spirit, order
of his personal appearance may again be
passed on the next date."

5. Shri Abhineet Jaiswal, learned
counsel for petitioner has drawn the
attention of this Court towards Annexure
No. 2 of the affidavit filed today, which is
the order dated 24.11.2023 passed by the
Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C)
No. of 25541 of 2023. Though the
aforesaid leave to appeal has been
dismissed by the Apex Court but one fact
has been noticed by this Court that by
means of aforesaid special leave to appeal,
the order dated 10.10.2023 (supra) has been
challenged.

6. To the best of my understanding, by
means of order dated 10.10.2023, no
direction has been issued against the
authority concerned, rather it has been
indicated on the basis of submission of
learned counsel for respondents that some
of the eligible officers have been promoted
and the remaining officers/officials, whose
promotion order has not been issued, any
appropriate order would be passed in their
case after affording an opportunity of
hearing to those officers. It has also been
noted in the aforesaid order that any fresh
order would be passed expeditiously,
therefore, by means of an order dated
10.10.2023, it was expected that in
compliance of the order of writ court any
appropriate order may be passed and that
order may be enclosed with the fresh
affidavit of compliance. However, in earlier
order, it has been noted that despite the
order of the writ court, no appropriate steps
have been taken by the competent authority
for substantial time, even after service of
contempt notice, the prompt steps have not
been taken to make compliance of the order
of the writ court in its letter and spirit.
380 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7. When this Court has already
observed that if the ineligible persons may
not be promoted, the appropriate exercise
may be undertaken by affording an
opportunity
of
hearing
to
those
officers/officials, meaning thereby, no
direction was issued to the authority
concerned
to
promote
the
ineligible
persons.

8. The bare minimum expectation of
the contempt court is to ensure the
compliance of the order of writ court in its
letter and spirit unless and until that order
has been stayed or set aside by the superior
court. I think, for the aforesaid bare
minimum expectation, no authority should
be aggrieved.

9. Even if the order of the writ Court
has been complied with in its letter and
spirit only such affidavit could be filed
apprising the Court that the complete
compliance has already been done, for that,
the precious time of the Apex Court may
not be wasted. If such affidavit is filed
indicating therein that the order of the writ
court has been complied with in its letter
and spirit demonstrating the relevant
documents,
the
contempt
petition
is
dismissed for the reason that no contempt
petition can be kept pending any longer if
the order of the writ Court has been
complied with in its letter and spirit.

10. The Apex Court should not be
approached casually or without having any
reasonable ground inasmuch as the highest
court of the country should be approached
only when there is any bona fide grievance
of the person, which has not been redressed
by the High Court/High Courts. If the
authority concerned is the Senior Officer of
the State Government i.e. opposite party
no. 2- Mr. Naveen Chandra, Consolidation
Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, he
should
remain
more
cautious
before
approaching the Apex Court ensuring that
the precious time of the Apex Court is not
wasted, and should also verify carefully
that his bona fide grievance is still unredressed before the High Court. Further, to
approach the Apex Court some reasonable
expenses are to be incurred, therefore, so as
to save the public exchequer, the Officer of
the State Government should remain so
cautious. He/she may not think so casually
that this is not his/her hard-earned money
but is of State Government and no one can
ask him/her for those expenses. Rather, the
proper approach of the officer must be that
if said legal recourse, which is so warranted
in the interest of justice, is not adopted the
State agency shall suffer irreparable loss
and injury. The aspect of misuse of public
exchequer should be taken so seriously by
the superior officers and if it is found that
the Apex Court has been approached
casually without having any plausible
reason, the explanation should be called
from the officer concerned.

11. It appears that in the present case
there
was
no
plausible
reason
or
explanation approaching the Apex Court,
therefore,
the
authority
himself
i.e.,
opposite party no. 2 has sought to withdraw
the SLP. Accordingly, the SLP was
dismissed on his request.

12. I have gone through one Government
Order dated 31.05.2017 bearing No.
31/2017/U.O-23/Saat-
Nyay-
1-201770G/2017 (Nyay Anu-2), issued by the
Principal
Secretary,
and
Legal
Remembrancer,
Department
of
Law,
Government of U.P., Lucknow addressing
to all Principal Secretaries/Secretaries,
Government of U.P. in respect of filing of
cases before the courts including Apex
11 All. Pradeshik Chakbandikarta Sangh Vs. Mr. Sudhir Garg, Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy.
 Lko & anr.
381
Court. By means of aforesaid Government
Orders guidelines have been circulated with
the direction that those guidelines should
be followed strictly. Some relevant extract
of the aforesaid Government Order is being
reproduced here-in-below:-

""2. ...

* एक सािारर् वािी की भांनि मुकिमों को नकसी भी
कीमि पर जीििे के उद्देश्य से पैरवी ि करें।

* केवि मुकिमा करिे के निए मुकिमा ि करें।

* यह सुनिनिि करें नक झूठी ििीिें ि िी जायें िथा सुसंगि
िकिीकी नबन्िुओं को हिोत्सानहि नकया जाय।

...

...

...

* मा० न्यायाियों में सरकारी मुकिमों को इस उद्देश्य के
साथ कम करिा है िानक न्यायािय का कीमिी समय अन्य
महत्वपूर्द िनम्बि मामिों के निपटारे में िगाया जा सके, नजससे नक
नवचारािीििा के औसि समय को 15 वर्द से घटाकर 03 वर्द
नकये जािे के राज्य नवनिक नमशि िक्ष्य को प्राप्त नकया जा सके।

...

अपील िादखल किनाः-

* एक पक्षीय और अन्िररम आिेशों के नवरुद्ध अपीि िहीं
िानखि की जायेगी। पहिे यह प्रयास अवश्य होिा चानहए नक
आिेश को रद्द कराया जाय। आिेश रद्द ि होिे की िशा में और
आिेश के प्रनिकूि प्रभाव पड़िे की िशा में अपीि िानखि नकया
जािा चानहए।
* सबसे पहिे उच्च न्यायािय के भीिर ही अपीि िानखि की
जािी चानहए। उच्चिम न्यायािय में, असािारर् नस्थनियों के नसवाय
सीिे अपीि िहीं नकया जािा चानहए।

...

...

...

उच्चतम न्यायालय में अपील िादखल नहीं की जायेंगी
जब तक दकः-

* मामिे में कािूि का नबन्िु सनम्मनिि ि हो,

* यनि यह िथ्य का प्रश्न है, और िथ्य का निष्ट्कर्द इििा
अिुनचि है नक उस निष्ट्कर्द पर कोई साि - साि सुथरा न्यानयक मि
िहीं पहुंच सकिा है,

* जहॉ सावदजनिक नवत्त प्रनिकूि रूप से प्रभानवि होिा हो,

* जहॉ सावदजनिक न्याय के साथ सारवाि व्यविाि हो,

* जहॉ संनविाि के अिीि होिे वािा कािूि का कोई प्रश्न
हो,

* जहॉ उच्च न्यायािय िे अपिे क्षेत्रानिकार का अनििमर्
नकया हो,

* जहॉ उच्च न्यायािय िे नकसी सांनवनिक प्राविाि को
अनिकारािीि रूप में अनभखनण्डि नकया हो,

* जहॉ उच्च न्यायािय की व्याख्या साििौर पर त्रुनटपूर्द हो।
* प्रत्येक मामिें में, कोई अपीि िायर करिे की आवश्यकिा का
एक समुनचि प्रमार्ि होगा। ऐसे प्रमार्ि में समथदि में संनक्षप्त नकन्िु
िकदपूर्द कारर् निये जायेंगे। इसी के साथ, वे कारर् भी अनभनिनखि
नकये जायेंगे नक अपीि िायर करिा ठीक या उपयुक्त क्यों िहीं
समझा गया।

13. In the present case, it is clear that
the aforesaid guidelines have not
been adhered to, rather the same
have been flouted and prima facie, it
appears that the precious time of this
Court as well as the Apex Court has
been wasted.

14. Undoubtedly, to approach the
Apex Court or the High Court is a
fundamental right of every citizen if he/she
is aggrieved from any action or inaction of
any authority or is aggrieved from any
order being passed in any judicial or quasi
judicial proceedings and no one can
restrain them to avail such remedy. At the
same time, it is also trite that the process of
law cannot be misused by filing frivolous,
misconceived or vexatious petition only
just to waste the precious time of the Court
and to waste the money for such litigation.
If such money belongs to the State
Exchequer, then it should be expensed with
due care & precaution, failing which, the
382 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
responsibility should be fixed on erring
authority.

15. I am unable to comprehend as to
why the order dated 10.10.2023 has been
challenged before the Apex Court inasmuch
as if the ground/reason challenging the
order was appropriate, reasonable and bona
fide, the authority should have not
requested before the Apex Court seeking
liberty to withdraw the SLP.

16. Therefore, prima facie, it is clear
that challenging the order dated 10.10.2023
before the Apex Court is nothing but
misuse of the process of the Court and
wasting the precious time of the Apex
Court, besides, is in utter disregard of the
specific guideines of the Government Order
dated 31.05.2017 (supra). Therefore, a
specific explanation is needed from the
opposite party no. 2, who was the petitioner
before the Apex Court as to why he has
challenged the order dated 10.10.2023
before the Apex Court instead of filing
affidavit of compliance before this Court
stating therein that the order of writ court
has been complied with in its letter and
spirit, inasmuch as had such fresh affidavit
of compliance been filed, the contempt
petition would have been dismissed.

17. List this case on 13.12.2023. On
that date, the opposite party no. 2 - Mr.
Naveen
Chandra,
Consolidation
Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow,
7th Floor, Indira Bhawan, Ashok Marg,
Lucknow-226001 shall appear in person
and he shall file his explanation on the
aforesaid observation.

18. In the meantime, Shri Abhineet
Jaiswal, learned counsel for petitioner shall
file his reply/objection to the second
affidavit of compliance.

19. It is made clear that any
appropriate order may be passed on the
next date after perusing the explanation so
filed by the authority concerned.

20. Let a copy of this order be placed
before the Chief Secretary, Government of
U.P., Lucknow, Principal Secretary/Legal
Remembrancer,
Department
of
Law,
Government
of
U.P.,
Lucknow
and
opposite party no. 1, namely, Shri Sudhir
Garg, Additional Chief Secretary/Principal
Secretary,
Department
of
Revenue,
Government of U.P., Civil Secretariat,
Lucknow for perusal and necessary action,
if so required, as per their wisdom, by the
Senior Registrar of this Court within three
working days.
----------
(2023) 11 ILRA 382
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1803 of 2021

Ram Saran Verma & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Dharmendra Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Mohammad Nauman, Osama Ahmad
Abbasi, Vijay Bahadur Yadav

Criminal Law - - Constitution of India,
1950 - - Article 226 - Scheduled Castes
and
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention
of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 14-A(1) -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 419,
420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B - Criminal
Appeal - Discharge Application - Forged