# Prakash Paswan v. State, 1999 (38)

- **Citation:** (2001) 1 ILRA 304
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2001
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/prakash-paswan-v-state-1999-38-39721
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
304
the maintenance of public order, then
such a satisfaction cannot be vitiated only
on the ground that no such order has been
passed as regards the other co-accused of
the case. This view has been taken by a
Full Bench of our Court in Chandra
Prakash Paswan Vs. State, 1999 (38)
ACC 721.

19. No other point was urged.
20. For the reasons mentioned
above, we do not find any merit in this
habeas corpus petition, which is hereby
dismissed.

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·%/( .$0$/ .,6+25(
7+( +21·%/( .$0$/ .,6+25( -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

%KXUH\
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL 3UDNDVK .ULVKQD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6KUL 6. 0HKURWUD
6&

/DQG DFTXLVLWLRQ $FW 6HFWLRQ $
WKH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ RI WKH RUGHU SDVVHG
XQGHU
6HFWLRQ
$
RI
WKH
$FW
LV
VWDWXWRU\
GXW\
RI
WKH
DXWKRULW\
FRQFHUQHG ,QGHHG KH LV REOLJHG WR GR
VR +HOG LQ SDUD
7KH UHVSRQGHQWV MRLQWO\ DQG VHYHUDOO\
VKDOO
WDNH
DSSURSULDWH
VWHSV
IRU
HQIRUFHPHQW
RI
WKH
RUGHU
GDWHG

0DUFK

$QQH[XUH
WR
WKH
3HWLWLRQ DQG HQVXUH WKDW WKH RUGHU LV
HQIRUFHG LQ DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK ODZ ZLWKLQ D
SHULRG RI VL[ PRQWKV

By the Court

1. Heard Sri Prakash Krishna, the
learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
petitioner and Sri S.K. Mehrotra, the
learned Brief Holder of the state of U.P.
representing the respondents.

2. By means of instant petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner prays, in substance, for
direction
to
the
respondents
for
implementation of the order dated 31st
March, 1993 passed by the Special Land
Acquisition
Officer,
Moradabad,
the
respondent no. 2, in proceedings under
Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894, hereinafter called the Act, A
copy of the said order is Annexure '2' to
the petition.

3. Neither is there anything in the
counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the
respondents
nor
has
anything
been
pointed out by the learned counsel
representing the respondents which may
justify the inaction on the part of the
respondent no. 2 in not implementing the
order dated 31st March, 1993. It cannot be
gainsaid that implementation of the order
passed under Section 28-A of the Act is
statutory duty of the authority concerned.
Indeed, he is obliged to do so.

4. For what has been said above, the
petition succeeds, and is allowed. The
respondents jointly and severally, shall
take appropriate steps for enforcement of
the
order
dated
31st
March
1993,
(Annexure-2 to the petition) and ensure
that the order is enforced in accordance
1All] Jagdish Singh V. Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P. through Secretary and others
305
with law within a period of six
months, to be computed from today.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+
7+( +21·%/( 90 6$+$, -
( +21·%/( 90 6$+$, -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

-DJGLVK 6LQJK
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
%DVLF 6KLNVKD 3DULVKDG 83 $OODKDEDG
WKURXJK LWV 6HFUHWDU\ DQG RWKHU
«5HVSRQGHQWV
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL $VKRN *XSWD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6UL 3. 6KDUPD
6&

7UDQVIHU 2UGHU RI ± &DQFHOODWLRQ DIWHU LWV
LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ ± +HOG 9DOLG
+HOG ± 3DUD
7KHUH LV QR EDU RU UHVWULFWLRQ WR WKH
PRGLILFDWLRQ UHYRFDWLRQ RU FDQFHOODWLRQ
RI DQ RUGHU RI WUDQVIHU HYHQ DIWHU LW KDV
EHHQ
LPSOHPHQWHG
7KHUHIRUH
WKH
'LVWULFW %DVLF (GXFDWLRQ 2IILFHU GLG QRW
FRPPLW
DQ\
HUURU
LQ
FDQFHOOLQJ
WKH
WUDQVIHU RUGHU RQ WKH JURXQG WKDW LW ZDV
LOOHJDO
&DVHV UHIHUUHG
 83/%(&

By the Court

1. The petitioner was transferred by
an order passed on 27.7.2000 by the
District Basic Education Officer, Banda.
In pursuance of the transfer order the
Petitioner joined on 31.7.2000 at the
transferred place. By another order passed
on 1.9.2000 the District Basic Education
Officer, Banda has cancelled the earlier
transfer order. The petitioner in this
petition has challenged the order passed
on 1.9.2000.

2. I have heard Shri Ashok Gupta
the learned counsel for petitioner. Shri
P.K.
Sharma
the
learned
counsel
appearing for the respondent's no. 1 and 2
and learned the standing counsel for the
respondent no. 3.

3. The argument of learned counsel
for the petitioner is that in pursuance of
the transfer order since the petitioner has
joined, therefore, the transfer order stood
exhausted and it could not be cancelled,
cannot be accepted. The Full Bench of
this court in Director Rajya Krishi
Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Lucknow and
others v. Natthi Lal (1995)( 2 UPLBEC
1128 has held that there is no bar or
restriction to the modification, revocation
or cancellation of an order of transfer
even after it has been implemented.
Therefore, the District Basic Education
Officer did not commit any error in
cancelling the transfer order on the
ground that it was illegal.

4. The other argument of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the Chief
Development Officer had no power to
direct the District Basic Education Officer
to cancel the transfer order is devoid of
any
merit.
The
Chief
Development
Officer is the Chairman of the committee
under
the
government
order
that
recommends transfer of the teachers
working basic schools in the district,
therefore, he is empowered to direct the
District Basic Education Officer to cancel
transfer order illegally passed earlier by
his predecessor.