# Pramod Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 8 ILRA 107
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-08-02
- **Case number:** Service Single No. 15271 of 2019
- **Bench:** Abdul Moin
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pramod-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47154
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Appointment - The
petitioner is agitating since the year 2000 for his
rights as Subject Specialist but since no reason
whatsoever has been provided by the Scrutiny
Committee in its report, even though it find the
case of the petitioner to be correct. It was for
the respondents to have called upon the
Scrutiny Committee to indicate the reasons, if
any, but then sitting over the recommendations
of the Scrutiny Committee which was formed in
108 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
pursuance to the directions of the Writ Court
would not be fit and fair. (Para 20)

The Court imposed cost of Rs. 50,000 on the
respondents as their casual behavior has
harassed the petitioner and had led to
unnecessary litigation as well. (Para 28)

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-8)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

8 All. Pramod Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
107
was not only a question of punishment, but
the consequences which would flow from
such punishment, especially the monetary
benefits to which late Mukesh Pal Singh
and after him his legal heirs would be
disentitled as a consequence thereof. In the
event they did not contest the appeal, it
could have dismissed it as having abated.

22. We, however, cannot sustain the
judgement of the Tribunal by which it has
held that the entire proceedings including
the punishment order should abate. We
accordingly set aside the decision of the
Tribunal dated 30 November 2018,
however, with the caveat that the appellate
order dated 15.4.2017 shall also stand set
aside. Consequently the appeal preferred by
late Mukesh Pal Singh stands revived. The
opposite party herein shall get themselves
substituted in such appeal in place of Late
Mukesh Pal Singh, and, if they so desire,
they may pursue the same. The appellate
authority shall hear them out and thereafter
shall decide the appeal on merits. Based on
this consequences will follow accordingly
as per law.

23. At this stage Shri Ratnesh
Chandra, learned counsel for the opposite
parties submits that his clients do not have
the punishment order nor the appellate
order and they had applied for the same
under the Right to Information Act, but,
they have not been provided the same. We
accordingly provide that the petitionerState shall provide the entire records of the
disciplinary proceedings pertaining to late
Mukesh Pal Singh to the opposite party
nos. 1 to 4 including the punishment order,
the appellate proceedings and the appellate
order passed therein. To further clarify this
aspect, the charge-sheet, reply if any
submitted by late Mukesh Pal Singh,
correspondence between him and the
enquiry officer or the disciplinary authority,
of any nature, all the evidence which may
have been referred in the chargesheet or
may have been led during enquiry or any
other document or correspondence which
may have taken place during the course of
enquiry, shall also be provided to the
opposite parties herein.

24. The claim petition bearing no.
1775 of 2013 stands disposed of in the
aforesaid terms.

25. With the above observations/
directions this writ petition is allowed in
the aforesaid terms.
----------
(2021)08ILR A107
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN , J.

Service Single No. 15271 of 2019

Pramod Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Umesh Chandra Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Appointment - The
petitioner is agitating since the year 2000 for his
rights as Subject Specialist but since no reason
whatsoever has been provided by the Scrutiny
Committee in its report, even though it find the
case of the petitioner to be correct. It was for
the respondents to have called upon the
Scrutiny Committee to indicate the reasons, if
any, but then sitting over the recommendations
of the Scrutiny Committee which was formed in
108 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
pursuance to the directions of the Writ Court
would not be fit and fair. (Para 20)

The Court imposed cost of Rs. 50,000 on the
respondents as their casual behavior has
harassed the petitioner and had led to
unnecessary litigation as well. (Para 28)

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-8)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Varunesh Chandra Shukla Vs St.of U.P. & ors.
Writ Petition No. 6216 of 2015

2. Sangita Srivastava Vs University of Allahabad
& ors. (2002) 3 UPLBEC 2502 (followed)

3. Sheela Devi Vs Managing Director & ors.
(2007) 2 UPLBEC 1853 (followed)

4. Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board Vs
C. Muddaiah (2007) 1 SCC 689

5. Subrata Roy Sahara Vs U.O.I. & ors. (2014) 8
SCC 470 (followed)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for
the respondents.

2. Present petition has been filed
praying for quashing of the order dated
26.04.2019 passed by opposite party no.1, a
copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ
petition, by which the claim of the
petitioner for appointment as Subject
Specialist has been rejected. A further
prayer is for a mandamus commanding the
respondents to issue appropriate order of
appointment treating the appointment of the
petitioner to be a notional appointment and
pay salary in terms of order passed in case
of Awadhesh Kumar.

3. The case set forth by the petitioner
is that in pursuance to an advertisement
dated 12.12.1999 for the post of Subject
Specialist, a selection had been held in
which the petitioner also qualified along
with one Awadhesh Kumar. The petitioner
claims to have submitted his joining as a
Subject Specialist at R.R. Inter College,
Sandila, District Hardoi. Subsequently, the
selection was stayed by the order of the
respondents dated 12.10.2000.

4. In the meanwhile, a selected person
namely Awadhesh Kumar filed writ petition
at Allahabad bearing Writ A No.10448 of
2001 in re: Awadhesh Kumar vs. State of
U.P. and others, and this Court vide order
dated 09.03.2010, a copy of which is
Annexure-4 to the writ petition, after
considering
that
there
were
certain
irregularities in the selection by which
ineligible persons had been permitted to
participate in the selection, was of the view
that mass cancellation of the selection held
in pursuance to the advertisement dated
12.12.1999 is legally unsustainable and
accordingly required the State Government
to constitute a Scrutiny Committee in
respect of the selection in question for
segregating the good part from bad part
after examining the records of each of the
selected candidate separately.

5. The petitioner also filed Writ
Petition No.7474 (SS) of 2000 before this
Court which remained pending. The same
was decided vide order dated 26.03.2012
requiring the respondents to decide the
representation of the petitioner in light of
the
judgment
of
Awadhesh
Kumar
(supra). The said representation was
decided vide order dated 11.01.2013, a
copy of which has been filed as Annexure-6
to the writ petition, whereby the claim of
the
petitioner
was
rejected.
Being
aggrieved, the petitioner filed Writ Petition
No.1369 (SS) of 2013. The said petition
8 All. Pramod Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
109
was disposed of requiring the respondents
to consider the case of the petitioner vide
order dated 07.07.2015, a copy of which is
Annexure-7 to the writ petition. Again the
claim of the petitioner was rejected vide
order dated 10.09.2015, a copy of which
has been filed as Annexure-8 to the writ
petition.

6. Being aggrieved, the petitioner
filed a third writ petition namely Writ
Petition No.6217 (SS) of 2015 and the
same was allowed vide judgment and
order dated 10.11.2016, a copy of which
has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ
petition, in terms of the decision of this
Court in the case of Varunesh Chandra
Shukla vs. State of U.P. and others
passed in Writ Petition No.6216 of 2015.
The judgment of Varunesh Chandra
Shukla (supra) is Annexure RA-1 to the
rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner.
The writ Court in the case of Varunesh
Chandra Shukla (supra) required the
matter to be considered by the State
Government in light of the direction
issued in the case of Awadhesh Kumar
(supra).

7. Incidentally, all the three judgments
of this Court passed in the case of the
petitioner attained finality.

8. Again the claim of the petitioner
was rejected vide order dated 22.01.2018,
which lead to a fourth round of litigation by
the petitioner by filing Writ Petition
No.6001 of 2018. The writ petition has
been allowed vide judgment and order
dated 25.09.2018, a copy of which has been
filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition,
whereby the respondents were required to
consider the appointment of the petitioner
on the post of Assistant Teacher (Subject
Specialist).

9. The claim of the petitioner has once
again been rejected vide order dated
26.04.2019, a copy of which has been filed
as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Being
aggrieved, the petitioner is before this
Court.

10. Perusal of the impugned order
dated 26.04.2019 would indicate that the
respondents have stated that the Scrutiny
Committee has found the case of the
petitioner to be correct but no reasons have
been assigned by the Scrutiny Committee
as to why it has done so.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner
argues that in case the reasons are not
forthcoming then the respondents should
have asked the reasons from the Scrutiny
Committee but once in terms of the
directions issued by the writ Court in the
case of Awadhesh Kumar (supra) of
constituting a Scrutiny Committee and the
Scrutiny Committee having found the claim
of the petitioner to be correct in the eyes of
law, there was no occasion for the
respondents to have blown hot and cold in
the same breath i.e. by indicating that the
Scrutiny Committee has found the claim of
the petitioner to be correct and thereafter
not acting upon the report of the Scrutiny
Committee by contending that no reasons
are forthcoming from the said said order. It
is thus contended that the impugned order
is patently bad in the eyes of law and
reflects patent non-application of mind.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further argues that in paragraph 13 of the
counter affidavit, the respondents have
admitted that Awadhesh Kumar, upon filing
of the contempt petition, had been issued
with a letter dated 22.11.2001, meaning
thereby that Awadhesh Kumar has been
given the benefit of the judgment passed at
110 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Allahabad whereby his case has been found
to be genuine by the Scrutiny Committee
and thus there cannot be any occasion for
the respondents to not extend the benefit to
the petitioner once admittedly even the case
of the petitioner has been found to be
correct as per the Scrutiny Committee.

13. Per contra, learned State Counsel
on the basis of averments contained in the
counter affidavit contends that though the
Scrutiny Committee has found the claim of
the petitioner to be correct yet no reasons
are forthcoming in the report of the
Scrutiny Committee as to why the claim of
the petitioner is correct therefore despite
the petitioner's claim having been found
correct it has not been acted upon.

14. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the records.

15. From perusal of the records, it is
apparent that the selection of Subject
Specialist
and
its
cancellation
was
challenged before the writ Court at
Allahabad in the case of Awadhesh
Kumar (supra) wherein the writ Court
specifically directed that mass cancellation
of the selection held in pursuance to the
advertisement cannot be legally sustained
more so when a large number of persons
have already been appointed and they have
joined in pursuance to the selection so held.
Accordingly, the State Government was
required to constitute a Scrutiny Committee
in respect of the selection in question for
segregating the good part from bad part
after examining the records of each of the
selected candidate separately and thereafter
to take appropriate action.

16. In the instant case the petitioner
had joined after a selection as a Subject
Specialist at R.R. Inter College, Sandila,
District Hardoi, on 12.10.2000 as would be
apparent from a perusal of the impugned
order dated 26.04.2019.

17. In pursuance to the directions
issued by the writ Court at Allahabad in the
case of Awadhesh Kumar (supra) a
Scrutiny Committee had been constituted,
which, as per orders issued by the
respondents,
found
the
case
of
the
petitioner to be correct. However, from
perusal of the impugned order, it comes out
that no reasons were forthcoming from the
Scrutiny Committee as to why the case of
the petitioner has been found to be correct.
Once the Scrutiny Committee had been
constituted in pursuance to the directions
issued
by
the
writ
Court
and
the
respondents themselves have acted upon
the same in the case of Awadhesh Kumar
accordingly they cannot be allowed to do a
volte face by contending that though the
Scrutiny
Committee
has
found
the
petitioner to be eligible yet no reasons are
forthcoming, as such recommendations of
the Scrutiny Committee cannot be upheld.
Further, the respondents themselves have
admitted in paragraph 13 of the counter
affidavit that Awadhesh Kumar had filed a
Contempt Petition and thus action was
taken by the State. In the instant case, it is
apparent that the petitioner has been
litigating right since the year 2000 i.e. for a
period of 21 years. Five petitions have been
filed and in four of the earlier petitions, the
writ
Court
primarily
required
the
respondents to consider the case of the
petitioner in light of the directions issued in
the case of Awadhesh Kumar (supra). All
the orders passed by the writ Court attained
finality as they were never challenged by
the respondents. As already indicated
above, the respondents have indicated in
the impugned order that the Scrutiny
Committee has found the case of the
8 All. Pramod Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
111
petitioner to be correct yet have not
proceeded further on the ground that the
Scrutiny Committee has not assigned
reasons. At the risk of repetition, once the
Scrutiny Committee has found the case of
the petitioner to be correct and in case the
reasons were not forthcoming, it was for
the respondents to have called upon the
Scrutiny Committee to indicate the reasons,
if
any,
but
then
sitting
over
the
recommendations
of
the
Scrutiny
Committee which, as already indicated
above, was formed in pursuance to the
directions of the writ Court, would not be
in the fitness and fairness of things.

18. Keeping in view the aforesaid
discussions, it is apparent that the impugned
order
dated
26.04.2019
is
legally
unsustainable in the eyes of law and the writ
petition deserves to be allowed.

19. However, whether the matter is to
be remitted back to the authorities concerned
the fifth time to reconsider the matter or
whether a direction should be issued by the
writ Court is the next issue which has to be
considered by this Court.

20. As already indicated above, this is
the fifth round of litigation for the petitioner
and the petitioner is continuously agitating
since the year 2000 for his right. Admittedly,
the Scrutiny Committee has also found the
case of the petitioner to be correct but the
respondents, through the impugned order
dated 26.04.2019, have rejected the claim of
the petitioner on the ground that no reasons
are forthcoming from the report of the
Scrutiny Committee. Thus, it is admitted that
the petitioner is eligible but for the impugned
order passed by the respondents.

21. A Division Bench of this Court in
the case of Sangita Srivastava vs.
University of Allahabad and others-
(2002) 3 UPLBEC 2502 has considered the
issue that in cases where an authority does
not
take
a
decision
on
relevant
considerations or totally misdirects itself
and the objective material on the basis of
which such decision is to be taken is before
the Court, then the Court, in certain
exceptional circumstances, can itself take
that decision instead of remanding the
matter to the authority, particularly when
such remand would entail further delay and
hardship.

22. For the sake of convenience, the
relevant observations of the Division Bench
of this Court in the case of Sangita
Srivastava (supra) are reproduced below:-

"30. We may, however, also
consider the matter from the point of view
of Section 31 (3) (c). We have already
observed that the petitioner fulfils the
conditions in Sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of the
above provision. The question is about Subclause (iii) which requires that he (or she)
should be found suitable for regular
appointment by the Executive Council. The
Executive Council by its resolution dated
4.5.2002 has rejected the petitioner's claim,
relying on the report of the Committee
dated 2.5.2002 (Annexure-C.A. 3). We have
already observed that the Committee's
report
is
incorrect
and
based
on
misconceptions. Hence, we quash the said
report dated 2.5.2002 as well as the
Executive
Council's
resolution
dated
4.5.2002 (Annexure-C.A. 4). The question
is now what is to be done? We could have
remanded the matter to the Executive
Council, but the Executive Council having
already disclosed its mind, a remand would
be an exercise in futility. No doubt Clause
(iii) of Section 31 (3) (c) states that the
opinion regarding suitability should be of
112 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Executive Council. But here we find
that the Executive Council has only relied
on the report of a Committee which is
totally incorrect and misconceived. A
remand to the Executive Council would
entail further delay and harassment for the
petitioner as the Executive Council would
attain set up a Committee and we cannot
say what would happen thereafter.

31. In our opinion, if a statute
requires that a decision on a matter is to be
taken by a certain authority, and if that
authority does not take the decision on
relevant
considerations
or
totally
misdirects itself, and the objective material
on the basis of which such decision is to be
taken is before the Court, then the Court, in
certain exceptional circumstances, can
itself
take
that
decision
instead
of
remanding the matter to the authority,
particularly when such remand would
entail further delay and hardship. This
proposition gets support from the decision
of the Supreme Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v.
Union of India. 1995 (6) SCC 749, where it
was held (in para 18) that although
ordinarily it is for the authority concerned
to decide the punishment of an employee
found guilty, in exceptional circumstances
the High Court itself can impose the
punishment.

32. In the State of Bihar v. Dr.
Braj Kumar Mishra and Ors., 1999 (9)
SCC 546, the Supreme Court observed (in
paragraph 7) :

"It is true that normally the
Court, in exercise of its power under
Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India,
after quashing the impugned order should
remand the matter to the authority
concerned particularly when such authority
consists of experts for deciding the issue
afresh in accordance with the direction
issued and the law laid down by it but in
specified cases, as the instant case, nothing
prevented the Court from issuing directions
when all the facts were admitted regarding
the eligibility of respondent No. 1 and his
possessing the requisite qualifications.
Remand to the authorities would have been
merely a ritual and ceremonial. Keeping in
mind the lapses attributable to the
Commission which had failed to take
appropriate action despite recommendation
made in favour of respondent 1, the learned
single Judge as also the Division Bench of
the High Court felt it necessary to declare
respondent No. 1 promoted with effect from
1.2.1985. We do not find any illegality or
error of jurisdiction."

33. In the present case, all the
objective
material
for
deciding
the
petitioner's suitability is before the Court.
Her academic qualifications are before us.
She has got first class first in B.Sc. and
M.Sc. She has taught and done other work
of
regular
lecturer
for
12
years
continuously, including the work of taking
classes (in fact she has done more work
than regular lecturers vide paragraph 8 of
the writ petition, setting papers, examining
answer copies, conducting examinations,
etc. She has done Ph.D. and NET, even
though these were not essential. There is no
allegation in the counter-affidavit that her
work was not satisfactory during these 12
years.

34. Ordinarily, suitability is to be
judged by the Executive Council and not by
this Court. But what are we to do when the
Executive Council acts in a patently unfair
manner, as it has done in this case? This
Court is a Court of Justice. No doubt it has
to do justice based on law, but the Court
will interpret law in a way that leads to
justice and not injustice.

35. On the facts of this case, and
in view of the fact that the Executive
Council
has
acted
on
irrelevant
considerations and has misdirected itself,
8 All. Pramod Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
113
and since a remand to it would lead to
further delay and harassment of the
petitioner, we ourselves have Judged the
petitioner's suitability and we find her
suitable to be appointed as regular lecturer,
and we hold that she fulfils all the
requirements of Section 31 (3) (c) of the
Act.

36. In the circumstances, a
mandamus is issued to the respondents to
regularise the petitioner as lecturer in
Home Science forthwith and pay her salary
of regular lecturer. The petition is allowed.
No order as to costs."

23. Likewise, this Court in the case of
Sheela Devi vs. Managing Director and
others - (2007) 2 UPLBEC 1853 while
placing reliance on the judgment of
Sangita Srivastava (supra), in the case of
compassionate appointment after repeated
rounds of litigation, has held as under:-

"15. Normally, the Court is very
loathe to grant a mandate itself for
appointment but as has been noted
hereinabove, twice the Bank has raised the
same bogey and misleading grounds to
reject the claim of the widow. Since the
Bank appears to have a closed mind on the
issue and is harassing a young widow by
forcing her to approach the Court time and
again it would be against the interest of
justice to remand the matter for decision
afresh. Applying the ratio of a Division
Bench of this Court rendered in the case of
Dr. Sangeeta Srivastava v. University of
Allahabd and Ors. (2002) (3) U.P.L.B.E.C.
2502, which has been affirmed by the Apex
Court, remand would be futile.

16. For the reasons above, this
petition succeeds and is allowed and the
impugned order dated 3.5.2005 is hereby
quashed and the respondent bank is
directed
to
grant
compassionate
appointment to the petitioner expeditiously,
preferably within a period of six weeks
from the date of submission of a certified
copy of this order. Petitioner would be
entitled to her costs."

24.

Considering
the
aforesaid
proposition of law as laid down by the
Division Bench in the case of Sangita
Srivastava (supra) and Sheela Devi
(supra) and this being a fifth round of
litigation for the petitioner, the writ petition
is allowed. A writ of certiorari is issued
quashing the order dated 26.04.2019, a
copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ
petition. A writ of mandamus is issued
directing the respondents to act upon the
recommendations
of
the
Scrutiny
Committee within a period of three months
from the date of communication of a
certified copy of this order with respect to
the petitioner.

25. In case the petitioner is appointed
then the consequences of his appointment
at par with Awadhesh Kumar, who, as per
the averments made in paragraph 13 of the
counter affidavit is said to have been issued
letter dated 22.11.2001, will follow.

26. Before parting with the case and
considering the harassment of the petitioner
and this being the fifth round of litigation
starting
from
the
year
2000
and
culminating in the present petition, which
has resulted in the impugned order which is
being set-aside by this Court, whether some
costs
should
be
imposed
upon
the
respondents who have continued with their
stand of rejecting the claim of the petitioner
on one ground or the other?

26. In this regard, from a perusal of
the discussion made above, it is apparent
that the respondents have adopted an
114 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
adamant attitude while reiterating the
earlier
order
despite
the
specific
observations of this Court in the earlier
round of litigations. It is thus apparent that
the respondents have not taken pain to look
into the earlier judgment of this Court and
primarily the same grounds have been
reiterated in the impugned order as already
indicated above.

27. The Apex Court in the case of
Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board
Vs. C. Muddaiah reported in (2007) 1 SCC
689 has considered somewhat akin facts that
even if the Court's order is wrong and illegal,
that is binding on the parties unless that order
is challenged in the superior Court. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that if this
principle is not adhered to by the State, there
will be end of the rule of law.

28. The relevant observations of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard are
reproduced below :-

"32. We are of the considered
opinion that once a direction is issued by a
competent court, it has to be obeyed and
implemented without any reservation. If an
order passed by a court of law is not
complied with or is ignored, there will be
an end of the rule of law. If a party against
whom such order is made has grievance,
the only remedy available to him is to
challenge the order by taking appropriate
proceedings known to law. But it cannot be
made ineffective by not complying with the
directions on a specious plea that no such
directions could have been issued by the
Court. In our judgment, upholding of such
argument would result in chaos and
confusion and would seriously affect and
impair administration of justice. The
argument of the Board, therefore, has no
force and must be rejected.

33. The matter can be looked at
from another angle also. It is true that
while granting a relief in favour of a party,
the court must consider the relevant
provisions of law and issue appropriate
directions keeping in view such provisions.
There may, however, be cases where on the
facts and in the circumstances, the court
may issue necessary directions in the larger
interest of justice keeping in view the
principles of justice, equity and good
conscience. Take a case, where ex facie
injustice has been meted out to an
employee. In spite of the fact that he is
entitled to certain benefits, they had not
been given to him. His representations have
been illegally and unjustifiably turned
down. He finally approaches a court of law.
The court is convinced that gross injustice
has been done to him and he was
wrongfully, unfairly and with oblique
motive deprived of those benefits. The
court, in the circumstances, directs the
authority to extend all benefits which he
would have obtained had he not been
illegally deprived of them. Is it open to the
authorities in such case to urge that as he
has not worked (but held to be illegally
deprived), he would not be granted the
benefits? Upholding of such plea would
amount to allowing a party to take undue
advantage of his own wrong. It would
perpetrate injustice rather than doing
justice to the person wronged."

28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Subrata Roy Sahara Vs. Union of
India and ors. reported in (2014) 8 SCC
470 has held as to when the Court should
impose cost to check the frivolous writ
petition and the orders which are cause of
explosion of dockets of the Court. As
already observed above, the impugned
order
herein
has
been
a
cause
of
unnecessary and avoidable litigation had
8 All. Arun Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
115
the respondents applied their mind to the
observations of this court in the earlier
judgment.

29. For the sake of convenience, the
relevant
observation
of
the
Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Subrata Roy
Sahara (supra) are being reproduced
below:-

"191. The Indian judicial system is
grossly afflicted with frivolous litigation. Ways
and means need to be evolved to deter litigants
from their compulsive obsession towards
senseless and ill-considered claims. One needs
to keep in mind that in the process of
litigation, there is an innocent sufferer on the
other side of every irresponsible and
senseless claim. He suffers long-drawn
anxious
periods
of
nervousness
and
restlessness, whilst the litigation is pending
without any fault on his part. He pays for the
litigation from out of his savings (or out of
his borrowings) worrying that the other side
may trick him into defeat for no fault of his.
He spends invaluable time briefing counsel
and preparing them for his claim. Time
which he should have spent at work, or with
his family, is lost, for no fault of his. Should a
litigant not be compensated for what he has
lost for no fault? The suggestion to the
legislature is that a litigant who has succeeded
must be compensated by the one who has lost.
The suggestion to the legislature is to
formulate a mechanism that anyone who
initiates and continues a litigation senselessly
pays for the same. It is suggested that the
legislature should consider the introduction of
a "Code of Compulsory Costs"."

30.

Accordingly,
taking
into
consideration the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Subrata
Roy
Sahara
(supra),
while
allowing the writ petition, this Court imposes
cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the State to be paid to
the petitioner. It would be open for the State
to recover the said cost from the officer
concerned who has passed the impugned
order dated 26.04.2019 and whose action has
resulted in such avoidable litigation causing
repeated harassment to the petitioner.

31. Let this order be complied within
four weeks from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order.
----------
(2021)08ILR A115
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
HON'BLE RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

Service Bench No. 15499 of 2021

Arun Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shivam Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Shikhar Anand

A. Practice & Procedure - The law does not
permit the extension of period of limitation by
mere filing of the representation. (para 5)

Writ Petition Rejected. (E-8)

List of Cases cited:-

1. State of Tripura & ors. Vs Arabinda
Chakraborty & ors. (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 300

2. Jacob Vs Director of Geology & Mining &anr.
(2008) 10 SCC 115

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J.