# Prakashvati Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2021) 3 ILRA 86 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2021-03-04 - **Case number:** Misc. Bench No. 22682 of 2017 - **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha, Rajeev Singh - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/prakashvati-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46974 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Govt. Advocate, Nandita Bharti, Vivek Raj Singh (A) Maintainability of miscellaneous application in a decided writ petition for any direction - Writ petition against the impugned order-applicant-respondent No.5 prematurely released under Article 161 of the Constitution of India-which was allowed by this Court - Chief Judicial Magistrate, was directed to take the respondent No.5 into custody forthwith and send him to jail to serve out the remaining sentence as awarded by the trial court-applicant-respondent No.5 prayed by way of present application - grant of time to avail the appropriate remedy before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment and order passed by this Court- HELD - No miscellaneous application is maintainable in a decided writ petition for any direction. (Para - 4,6) Miscellaneous application rejected. (E-6) List of Cases cited: - ## Text 86 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES technical bid on the ground that the petitioner-firm was not registered with the Corporation. 14. So far as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that certain favours were extended to respondent nos.8 and 9 in their registration, we may only note, as can be deduced from the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the Corporation, that registration of respondent no.8 was renewed on 26.06.2020 as is apparent from a perusal of the document annexed at page 71 of the writ petition. Thus, the renewal was prior to issuance of the NIT. So far as renewal of the registration of respondent no.9 is concerned, we may notice that firstly, the contract has not been awarded to the respondent no.9 and secondly, the registration was renewed on 21.07.2020 pursuant to a letter requesting for renewal of registration submitted on 26.05.2020. So far as the other reasons, namely, reasons (B), (C) and (D) are concerned, the respondent-corporation in its counter affidavit has denied that the petitioner-firm submitted three years outdoor weathering test report of retro reflective sheeting from an Indian Lab from the manufacturers. The respondentcorporation has further stated that though in lieu of outdoor weathering test report from Indian Lab the bidders were permitted to submit a tender certificate conforming to ASTM (D4956-09), however, the petitioner-firm did not submit this document as well. It has been denied in the counter affidavit that none of the participants submitted Rebound Ability Report; rather it has been submitted that all other tenderers had uploaded their reports as per the terms and conditions and this report to be submitted, was an essential feature. The respondents have also stated that the petitioner did not submit the sample for testing. In respect of reasons (B), (C) and (D) as given for not accepting the technical bid submitted by the petitioner-firm, we only observe that this Court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the experts. The reasons (B), (C) and (D) clearly lie in technical realm and such technical issues and subjects can be better analyzed by the persons with the technical knowledge. 15. For the said reasons, the grounds taken by the petitioner-firm assailing the reasons (B), (C) and (D) given by the respondent-corporation-firm not accepting the technical bid also fail. 16. In view of the discussions made above, we find the writ petition is devoid of merit which is hereby dismissed. 17. Interim order, if any, shall stand discharged. 18. In the facts of the case, the parties to bear their own costs. ---------- (2021)03ILR A86 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 04.03.2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J. THE HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J. Misc. Bench No. 22682 of 2017 Prakashvati Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Ishan Baghel, Parikshit Singh 3 All. Prakashvati Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 87 Counsel for the Respondents: Govt. Advocate, Nandita Bharti, Vivek Raj Singh (A) Maintainability of miscellaneous application in a decided writ petition for any direction - Writ petition against the impugned order-applicant-respondent No.5 prematurely released under Article 161 of the Constitution of India-which was allowed by this Court - Chief Judicial Magistrate, was directed to take the respondent No.5 into custody forthwith and send him to jail to serve out the remaining sentence as awarded by the trial court-applicant-respondent No.5 prayed by way of present application - grant of time to avail the appropriate remedy before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment and order passed by this Court- HELD - No miscellaneous application is maintainable in a decided writ petition for any direction. (Para - 4,6) Miscellaneous application rejected. (E-6) List of Cases cited: - 1. St. of U.P. Vs Brahm Datt Sharma & anr., (1987) 2 SCC 179 (Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J. & Hon'ble Rajeev Singh, J.) C.M. Application No.36216 of 2021 1. Shri Kunwar Raj Singh (deponent), who is the son as well as pairokar of the respondent No.5, has appeared in person to argue the present application and stated that in compliance of the Court's order dated 03.03.2021, he had informed about the said order to Shri Ishan Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioner, who in turn stated that the lawyers are abstaining from judicial work today, therefore, he will not appear before this Court. 2. In view of the same, we proceed to hear the present application filed on behalf of the respondent No.5. 3. Heard Shri Kunwar Raj Singh, deponent in person and Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State. 4. Shri Kunwar Raj Singh, deponentin-person has submitted that the petitioner had moved present writ petition against the impugned order dated 15.03.2017 by which the applicant-respondent No.5 was prematurely released under Article 161 of the Constitution of India, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 26.02.2021 and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahar was directed to take the respondent No.5 namely Jaini Singh into custody forthwith and send him to jail to serve out the remaining sentence as awarded by the trial court, and the applicant-respondent No.5 has prayed by way of present application for grant of time to avail the appropriate remedy before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment and order dated 26.02.2021 passed by this Court. 5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of applicant-respondent No.5 and submitted that in a decided petition, no miscellaneous application for any further direction is maintainable, and she has also submitted that it is always open to the applicant-respondent No.5 to avail appropriate remedy against the order passed by this Court. 6. Considering the arguments of Shri Kunwar Raj Singh appearing in person on behalf of the applicant-respondent No.5 and learned A.G.A. and also going through the facts and circumstances of the case as 88 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES well as judgment and order dated 26.02.2021 and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Brahm Datt Sharma and Another reported in (1987) 2 SCC 179 in para 10 that no miscellaneous application is maintainable in a decided writ petition for any direction, hence, the present application is hereby rejected. ---------- (2021)03ILR A88 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 16.03.2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAV, J. Application U/S 482/378/407 No. 1324 of 2021 Radha Krishna Upadhyay ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicant: Pranshu Agrawal, Divya Singh, Dr. Krishna Singh Counsel for the Opposite Parties: G.A. (A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 395 - punishment for dacoity, Sections 397 - Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt , Sections 412 - Dishonestly recieving property stolen in the commission of a dacoity, Sections 384 - punishment for extortion , Sections 417 - punishment for cheating, Sections 420 - Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, Sections 216A -penalty for harbouring robbers or dacoits , Arms Act, 1959 - Section 30 - punishment for contravention of liscence or rule Present application moved by applicant, who was identified by the other co-accused - the complainant of the case on the basis of CCTV footage, involved in commission of the crime under the incident reported on 09.03.2019 - police submitted the charge sheet on the basis of evidences collected during investigation - Charge framed - Discharge application, preferred by the petitioner has been rejected.(Para - 3,6) HELD:- There is no fact or circumstance pleaded in the application which manifest the abuse of power by the trial court while passing the impugned order .There is no illegality in the order of the trial court in rejection of the application to discharge the accused-applicant and to frame the charge.(Para - 9) Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. (E-6) List of Cases cited: - 1. Inder Mohan Goswami & anr. Vs St. of Uttaran. & ors. , (2007) 12 SCC , Page 1 2. St.of Har. & ors. Vs Bhajan Lal & ors., 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 (Delivered by Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar Srivastav, J.) 1. The case is called out. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State are present in the Court. 3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is moved to quash the order dated 08.03.2021 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Lucknow in case arising out of Sessions Trial No.775/2019, bearing Crime No. 141 /2019, under Sections 395 /397 /412 /384 /417/420/216A of I.P.C. & Section 30 of Arms Act, 1989, Police Station Gosaiganj, District Lucknow, therein framing charge against the petitioner under Section 395/397/384/417/420 of I.P.C. and to quash the order dated 01.02.2021, wherein the