# R.K. Gupta v. The Chairman/Managing Director and others

- **Citation:** (2002) 1 ILRA 224
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2001-12-18
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3009 of 2002
- **Bench:** M. Katju, S.K. Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/r-k-gupta-v-the-chairman-managing-director-and-others-39774
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India- Article 226- the
petitioner who was posted under U.P.
Rajya Vidyut Nigam Ltd., continues to
remain on deputation in the corporation
despite his absorption in U.P. Power
Corporation Ltd.

Held- Para 9

The
petitioner
in
fact
been
given
promotion and hence we see no reason
to interfere with the impugned orders.
Moreover, this is not a fit case for
exercise of discretion of power under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Case referred
1977(2) SLR 551
1965 AIR SCR 241

## Text

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
224

21. In view of the above, impugned
judgment and order dated 10.12.2001
(Annexure-7 to the Writ Petition) passed
by the Additional District Judge (Court
No.3) Bulandshahr in Rent Control
Appeal No. 4 of 1995 (Abdul Haq Khan
versus Rajpal Singh alias Rajveer Singh
and others) suffers from manifest error
apparent on the face of record and cannot
be sustained. Consequently, impugned
judgment and order dated10.12.2001
passed by Additional District Judge
(Court No.3), Bulandshahr in Rent
Control Appeal No. 4 of 1995- Abdul Haq
Khan versus Rajpal Singh alias Raj Veer
Singh and others, is quashed, and the case
is remanded to the lower Appellate Court
for
deciding
the
matter
afresh
in
accordance with law and keeping the
above observations in mind. The parties
shall have right to raise their grievance, if
any, including the opportunity to meet the
additional evidence, if no opportunity was
afforded in the past to meet the same.

22. The Appellate Authority shall
decide the rent control appeal, in
pursuance of the present judgment, as
expeditiously
as
possible,
preferably
within six months from the date of receipt
of a certified copy of this judgment.

23. Considering the facts of the case,
I direct that the rent control appeal in
question shall be heard by the concerned
District Judge himself.

24. The petition stands allowed
subject to the observations and directions
made above.

No order as to costs.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 4 FEBRUARY, 2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE S.K. SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3009 of 2002

R.K. Gupta

...Petitioner
Versus
The Chairman/Managing Director and
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vivek Misra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Anil Mehrotra
Sri S.P. Mehrotra

Constitution of India- Article 226- the
petitioner who was posted under U.P.
Rajya Vidyut Nigam Ltd., continues to
remain on deputation in the corporation
despite his absorption in U.P. Power
Corporation Ltd.

Held- Para 9

The
petitioner
in
fact
been
given
promotion and hence we see no reason
to interfere with the impugned orders.
Moreover, this is not a fit case for
exercise of discretion of power under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Case referred
1977(2) SLR 551
1965 AIR SCR 241

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
against the impugned order of transfer
dated 18.12.2001 (Annexure-1 to this
petition) and the relieving order dated
7.1.2002
(Annexure-2
to
this
writ
petition).
1All] R.K. Gupta V. The Chairman/Managing Director and others
225

2. The petitioner was posted as
Executive Engineer at Panki Thermal
Power Station, Panki, Kanpur under the
U.P. State Electricity Board. The U.P.
Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 trifurcated
the Board into three Corporation namely
U.P. Power Corporation Limited; U.P.
Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. And
U.P. Rajya Jal Vidyut Utpadan Nigam. A
transfer scheme, 2000 was framed in
exercise of powers conferred by section
23 of the said Act. Photostat copy of the
relevant part of the Transfer Scheme is
Annexure-5 to the petition. Clause 6 (6)
of the Transfer Scheme states that initially
the personnel of the Board shall continue
on provisional basis in the place where
they were posted on the date of the
transfer subject to certain terms and
conditions. Thereafter, the U.P. Power
Corporation Ltd. in consultation with the
two other Transferee Corporations and the
State Government has to finalise the
permanent absorption of the personnel
specified in Schedule H and I of the
Scheme
taking
into
account
the
suitability, ability and experience of the
personnel,
number
and
nature
of
vacancies and other relevant factors. For
this purpose the U.P. Power Corporation
in consultation with the above mentioned
authorities has to constitute a Committee
which has to make recommendations and
thereafter the U.P. Power Corporation
Ltd. again in consultation with the above
mentioned authorities has to take a
decision on the transfer and permanent
absorption of the relevant personnel
taking into account the recommendation
of the Committee. By Notification dated
9.1.2001 (Annexure-7 to the petition) the
U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. in pursuance
of the provision of Clause 6 (6) of the
Transfer Scheme decided to finally absorb
certain employees whose names are given
therein but with certain conditions. One of
the condition was that these employees of
U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. may be
placed on deputation with the U.P. Vidyut
Utpadan Nigam Ltd. till 31.3.2002 or
earlier.

3. The petitioner had opted for
employment in U.P. Power Corporation
Ltd. vide Annexure-8 to the petition and
his grievance is that since he has been
finally absorbed in the service of U.P.
Power Corporation Ltd. he cannot be sent
on deputation without his consent to U.P.
Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. By means of
the impugned order dated 18.12.2001
Annexure-1 to the petition the petitioner
was
promoted
as
Deputy
General
Manager and sent on deputation to U.P.
Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. Vide
order of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd.
Dated 10.12.2001 (Annexure-9 to the
petition).

4. In paragraph 15 of the counter
affidavit it is stated that the U.P. Rajya
Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. had sent a
letter dated 20.6.2001 to the U.P.
Government
mentioning
about
the
shortage of Officers in its service because
of which it was not possible to run the
Thermal power Project. By letter dated
23.11.2001and
reminder
the
Vidyut
Utpadan Nigam has requested U.P.
Government to extend the deputation
period. Photostat copies of the relevant
letters in this connection are Annexure-5
CA 3,4 and 5 to the Counter Affidavit.

5. In paragraph 17 of the counter
affidavit it is stated that the office memo
dated
9.1.2001
itself
provides
for
continuance of deputation till 31.3.2002
and thus there was no question of getting
any consent from the petitioner.
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
226

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner cannot be
sent on deputation against his wish and
for this purpose he has relied on the
decision of the Gujrat High Court in
Bhagwati Prasad Versus State of Gujrat
1977 (2) SLR 551 he further relied on the
Notification dated 27.3.1968 issued by the
U.P.
State
Electricity
Board
vide
Annexure-RA-1
to
the
Rejoinder
Affidavit.

7. On the other hand, Sri S.P.
Mehrotra
learned
counsel
for
the
respondents has relied on the decision of
the Supreme Court in C. Beepathuma
and
others
v.
Velasari
Shankaranarayana Kadmbolithaya AIR
1965 SC 241 and he has contended that
the petitioner cannot approbate and
reprobate. By the order dated 9.1.2001 the
petitioner was finally absorbed in U.P.
Power Corporation Ltd. subject to the
terms and conditions mentioned in the
said order. The said order specifically
provided that if the Engineer Officers who
stood absorbed in U.P. Power Corporation
Ltd. were posted on 9.1.2001 in U.P.
Rajya Utpadan Nigam Ltd. they were to
continue to remain on deputation to the
said Corporation upto 31.3.2002 despite
their
absorption
in
U.P.
Power
Corporation Ltd. Hence the petitioner
who was posted at Panki Thermal Plant,
Kanpur which has now come under the
U.P. Rajya Vidyut Nigam Ltd. continues
to
remain
on
deputation
in
that
Corporation despite his absorption in U.P.
Power Corporation Ltd. The order dated
9.1.2001 is a composite order and the
petitioner cannot claim the benefit of part
of it while not accepting another part.
Similarly the petitioner on accepting his
promotion as Deputy General Manager by
order dated 10.12.2001 is also bound by
the conditions mentioned in the said
order, namely he was to remain on
deputation with U.P. Rajya Vidyut
Utpadan Nigam Ltd. Thus both the orders
dated 9.1.2001 and 10.12.2001 are
composite orders and cannot be accepted
in part only.

8. In our opinion the contention of
the learned counsel for the respondent
appears to be correct, since it is supported
by the aforesaid decision of the Supreme
Court in C. Beepathuma's case (supra).
Moreover, since a new Scheme had come
into force regarding production and
distribution
of
electricity
in
U.P.
obviously there has to be some flexibility
in the matter for some period. After all the
generation and supply of electricity has to
continue in the State. The U.P. Rajya
Vidyut
Utpadan
Nigam
Ltd.
is
experiencing shortage of Officers who
had
experience
in
production
of
electricity. We see no reason to interfere
with the order placing the petitioner on
deputation with the said Corporation since
he was working at Panki Thermal Plant,
Kanpur
which
does
the
work
of
production of electricity and hence he
must be having experience in the matter.
The decision of the Gujrat High Court on
which reliance has been placed by the
learned counsel for the petitioner is
therefore distinguishable.

9. The petitioner in fact been given
promotion and hence we see no reason to
interfere with the impugned orders.
Moreover, this is not a fit case for
exercise of discretion of power under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The petition is dismissed.
----------
1All] M/s Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. and others V. State of U.P. and others
227
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.1.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE J.C. GUPTA, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5351 of
2000

M/s. Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. and
others

 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri R.S. Shukla
Sri P.K. Sinha
Sri Narul Huda

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.
Sri D.S. Tewari
Sri H.N. Mehrotra
Sri Shankar Suan

Cr.P.C. - Section 482-Objection filed by
the accused against Summoning Order
for recalling the same- not maintainablewhen the remedy is already provided to
an accused under Section 245 (2)
Cr.P.C., a parallel remedy can not be
allowed to be availed by him by filing
objections.
Held - Para 8

This Court finds that the objections filed
by the petitioners before the Magistrate
concerned for recalling the summoning
order were not maintainable for two
reasons. Firstly, that this court while
deciding application under section 482
Cr.P.C.
had
already
held
that
the
summoning order was passed by the
Magistrate concerned after application of
judicial mind and had rejected the
contention of the accused persons that
complaint was not maintainable, and
Secondly,
no
such
objections
were
permissible under law in view of Full
Bench decision of Ranjeet Singh (supra).
Case law relied:
2000 Cr.L.J. 2738
(Delivered by Hon'ble J.C. Gupta, J.)

1. By means of this writ petition,
petitioners have prayed for quashing the
orders dated 12.5.2000 and 24.8.2000
passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad
and Additional Session Judge, Ghaziabad
respectively. A further prayer has been
made for issuing a writ of certiorari
quashing the complaint of case no. 3386
of 1997, Dabur India Ltd. Vs. M/s B.S.I.
Ltd.
And
others
and
the
entire
proceedings initiated on the basis of the
said complaint, which are pending before
I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ghaziabad.

2. The court has heard Sri P.K.
Sinha for the petitioners, learned A.G.A.
for the State and S/Sri D.S. Tiwari, H.N.
Mehrotra
and
Shankar
Suan
for
respondents no. 2 and 3.

3. The relevant facts are that
respondents nos. 2 and 3 have filed a
criminal complaint against the petitioners
for proceeding against them under Section
420 I.P.C. and Sections 138/141 of the
Negotiable of Instruments Act. After
recording statement of the complainant
under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and holding
inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the
concerned Magistrate on 29.11.97 passed
an
order
summoning
petitioners
as
accused persons in respect of the
aforesaid penal offences. The petitioners
challenging the said order and the
maintainability of complaint, filed an
application under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure invoking inherent
powers of this court for quashing the
summoning order and for dropping the