# Raghuveer Bahadur Sinha v. District Magistrate Faizabad and another

- **Citation:** (2011) 1 ILRA 15
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-01-13
- **Case number:** Misc. Bench No. 77 of 2011
- **Bench:** Devi Prasad Singh, Virendra Kumar Dixit
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raghuveer-bahadur-sinha-v-district-magistrate-faizabad-and-another-41813
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art-226-14, 19 (1)
(g),
21-Status
certificate-refusal
on
ground-petitioner residing in house of
ancestor situated over abadi land-in case
of default/or public loss-can not be
recovered-held-illegal-amounts
to
restriction with regard to protection
granted under article 19(1) (g)- it is for
the
corporation,
department
or
establishment
to
provide
necessary
safeguard-and
not
for
the
Distt.
Magistrate-who is bound to give income
certificate-direction to Secretary, issued
necessary guidelines to all the Distt.
Magistrate for future action.

Held: Para 5

The reason assigned for refusal of status
certificate seems to be not justified. Only
because the person is residing in the
village in his ancestral house along with
other family members should not be
deprived
from
status
certificate.
A
person who is member of joint family is
also entitled to enjoy quality, dignity and
privacy of life protected by Article 21 of
the Constitution of India. Non-issuance
of status certificate to a person who is
residing in village may be in ancestral
16 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
house situated over the abadi land shall
affect the right guaranteed under Article
19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India to
carry on trade and profession coupled
with Article 21 of the Constitution of
India which protects right to livelihood.
Absolute denial to issue status certificate
merely on the ground that a person
residing in his ancestral house situated
over the abadi land of the village is
highly arbitrary and have got no nexus
with the object sought to achieve, hence,
hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. Though State has got right to
impose restriction with regard to right
guaranteed under Article 19(1) (g) of the
Constitution of India but that should be
reasonable, just, fair and proper.

## Text

1 All] Raghuveer Bahadur Sinha V. District Magistrate Faizabad and another
15
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
cited above, the petitioner was a
necessary party to the revision filed by
the complainant against the order passed
by the learned Magistrate under Section
203 of the Code. The impugned order
passed
by
the
learned
Additional
Sessions Judge in the absence of the
petitioner was bad in the eyes of law and
liable to be quashed and the matter
requires to be remanded back for afresh
decision in accordance with law after
directing the revisionist to implead the
petitioner as party and affording him
proper
opportunity
of
hearing.
Consequently, the impugned summoning
order dated 21.8.2010 passed by the
learned
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate, IV, Faizabad is also liable to
be quashed.

9. The petition is, therefore,
allowed. The impugned order dated
09.8.2010
passed
by
the
learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9,
District Faizabad in Criminal Revision
No. 69/10 (Rajesh Tiwari Vs. State of
U.P.) and the impugned summoning
order dated 21.8.2010 passed by the
learned
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate, IV, Faizabad in Criminal
Complaint Case No. 2810/09 (Rajesh
Tripathi Vs. Mahraj Dutt and Others),
under Sections 323/504/506 IPC, P.S.
Raunahi, District Faizabad are hereby set
aside. The matter is remanded back to
the learned Additional Sessions Judge
with a direction that he shall direct the
revisionist to implead the petitioner as
party in the revision filed by him then he
will dispose of the revision after serving
notice to the petitioner and affording him
proper opportunity of hearing.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.01.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DEVI PRASAD SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE VIRENDRA KUMAR DIXIT, J.

Misc. Bench No. 77 of 2011

Raghuveer Bahadur Sinha
 ...Petitioner
Versus
District Magistrate Faizabad and
another

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Karunakar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India, Art-226-14, 19 (1)
(g),
21-Status
certificate-refusal
on
ground-petitioner residing in house of
ancestor situated over abadi land-in case
of default/or public loss-can not be
recovered-held-illegal-amounts
to
restriction with regard to protection
granted under article 19(1) (g)- it is for
the
corporation,
department
or
establishment
to
provide
necessary
safeguard-and
not
for
the
Distt.
Magistrate-who is bound to give income
certificate-direction to Secretary, issued
necessary guidelines to all the Distt.
Magistrate for future action.

Held: Para 5

The reason assigned for refusal of status
certificate seems to be not justified. Only
because the person is residing in the
village in his ancestral house along with
other family members should not be
deprived
from
status
certificate.
A
person who is member of joint family is
also entitled to enjoy quality, dignity and
privacy of life protected by Article 21 of
the Constitution of India. Non-issuance
of status certificate to a person who is
residing in village may be in ancestral
16 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
house situated over the abadi land shall
affect the right guaranteed under Article
19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India to
carry on trade and profession coupled
with Article 21 of the Constitution of
India which protects right to livelihood.
Absolute denial to issue status certificate
merely on the ground that a person
residing in his ancestral house situated
over the abadi land of the village is
highly arbitrary and have got no nexus
with the object sought to achieve, hence,
hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. Though State has got right to
impose restriction with regard to right
guaranteed under Article 19(1) (g) of the
Constitution of India but that should be
reasonable, just, fair and proper.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh, J.)

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

2. The present writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
has been filed on account of refusal of
District Magistrate Faizabad to issue a
status certificate to the petitioner to
obtain contract from the government
department. Certificate has been refused
by the District Magistrate on the ground
that petitioner resides in village, in a
house constructed over the abadi land.
In the said house, petitioner is residing
along with other family members and
being joint family in case status
certificate is issued it shall not be easy
to recover the dues and in the event of
failure on the part of petitioner to pay
the dues, recovery of the same by
auctioning of the property. Tehsildar,
Raunahi was appeared on earlier date
and stated that the petitioner is residing
in his own ancestral house along with
other family members. It has been
admitted by Tehsildar that in the village
almost every house is situated in abadi
land and is in occupation from one
generation to other.

3.

Accordingly
the
question
cropped up as to whether only because a
citizen is the member of joint family
residing in ancestral house in a village
the administration may refuse to issue
status certificate? We have call the
District Magistrate Faizabad to appear
and assist the court. In consequence to
which, the District Magistrate Faizabad
Shri M.P. Agarwal is present in person.
With the consent of parties' counsel we
proceed to decide the writ petition
finally.

4. Shri M.P. Agarawal, District
Magistrate,
Faizabad
submits
that
ordinarily status certificate is not issued
to the persons whose house is situated in
abadi land of a village may be ancestral
house. The reason assigned by the
District Magistrate is that in the default
of payment of dues it shall not be
possible
to
recover
the
dues
by
auctioning
the
property.
District
Magistrate
admitted
that
status
certificate may be issued in case the
person has purchased the house of the
village through registered sale deed may
be situated over the abadi land.

5. The reason assigned for refusal
of status certificate seems to be not
justified. Only because the person is
residing in the village in his ancestral
house along with other family members
should not be deprived from status
certificate. A person who is member of
joint family is also entitled to enjoy
quality, dignity and privacy of life
protected
by
Article
21
of
the
Constitution of India. Non-issuance of
1 All] Raghuveer Bahadur Sinha V. District Magistrate Faizabad and another
17
status certificate to a person who is
residing in village may be in ancestral
house situated over the abadi land shall
affect the right guaranteed under Article
19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India to
carry on trade and profession coupled
with Article 21 of the Constitution of
India which protects right to livelihood.
Absolute
denial
to
issue
status
certificate merely on the ground that a
person residing in his ancestral house
situated over the abadi land of the
village is highly arbitrary and have got
no nexus with the object sought to
achieve, hence, hit by Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. Though State has
got right to impose restriction with
regard to right guaranteed under Article
19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India but
that should be reasonable, just, fair and
proper.

6. Accordingly while affirming the
state's
right to
impose
reasonable
restriction we are of the view that
restriction should be reasonable and
citizens must not be deprived from the
"status certificate" only because he or
she is residing in ancestral house of a
village. Appropriate safeguard may be
provided while issuing status certificate
and
while
providing
contractual
assignment, for recovery of dues.
Moreover, it is for the corporation,
department or establishment to provide
necessary safeguard while preparing the
agreement for contractual assignment,
not the District Magistrate. It shall
always be obligatory on the part of the
District Magistrate to provide income or
status certificate to a citizen when he or
she approach for the purpose. In case, it
is joint family property then that aspect
of the matter may be looked into and
indicated in the status certificate so that
while awarding contract and entering
into agreement appropriate care may be
taken by the department concerned.

7. It shall be appropriate for the
District Magistrate as well as State
Government
to
issue
appropriate
guidelines for issuance of status or
income certificate to the members of
joint family. Nothing should be done
which may compel the members of joint
family
to
disintegrate
and
live
individual life. Since, ages Indians are
residing jointly in the villages and while
dealing with the matters with regard to
members
of
joint
Hindu
family
appropriate care should be taken to keep
their jointness, instead creating such
circumstances
because
of
which
members of joint family disintegrates.
District Magistrate shall look into the
matter
and
prepare
appropriate
guidelines and issue a fresh order with
regard to status certificate to the
petitioner.

8. At this stage, petitioner's
counsel submits that his brother is ready
to furnish "no objection" certificate with
regard to issuance of status certificate.
In case, it is so that aspect of the matter
shall be looked into by the District
Magistrate.

9. Subject to aforesaid observation,
let the State Government also at its end
take a decision and frame guidelines
with regard to issuance of status
certificate to the citizens. The guidelines
or the circular prepared for the purpose
may not affect the jointness of the
families residing in the villages of the
State. Rather the State Government
should
encourage
and
prepare
guidelines in such a manner so the age
18 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
old joint family system still working
satisfactorily
in
the
villages
may
continue for all time to come. The
denial of certificate solely on the ground
that a person is residing in ancestral
house constructed over the abadi land
shall be violative of fundamental right
as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of
the Constitution of India. Restrictions
and conditions should be reasonable to
meet out the requirement of Article 14
of the Constitution of India. No person
should be deprived from his source of
livelihood only because he or she is the
members of the joint Hindu Family
residing in his or her ancestral house.
Guidelines may be framed in such a
manner so that in the event of default,
recovery may be made from the share of
such
persons-whether
it
is
from
agricultural land or portion of house but
absolute denial shall be detrimental to
joint families which is still continuing in
the State of U.P. in the rural area.

10. A copy of the present order
shall be sent to the Chief Secretary,
State of U.P. to prepare guidelines with
regard to issuance of status certificate
by
the
District
Magistrate
and
consequential circular so that persons
residing in their ancestral house or who
are members of joint families may not
be deprived to carry on their profession
or trade.

11. The District Magistrate shall
take a fresh decision keeping in view
the observations made hereinabove,
expeditiously.

12. Subject to above, writ petition
is disposed of finally.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.01.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SATYENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

U/S 482/378/407 No. - 267 of 2011

Sanjay Dutt

 ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P and others...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Kunwar Siddharth Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt.Advocate

Code of Criminal Procedure Section 482summoning order-offence U/S 294 for
allegation repeating filmy dialogue-not
amount-to offence alleged-operation of
summoning order stayed.

Held: Para 12

He has merely repeated the dialogue of
the film and repeating of dialogue of his
film does not amount to coining some
phrase or remark being obscene against
any
person.
Gandhian
theory
as
propounded by the petitioner was his
prerogative,
therefore,
in
the
circumstances, it appears that process of
law has been misused.
Case law discussed:
1956 S.C. 541 (S) AIR V 43 C 93 Aug.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.S. Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri I. B. Singh, Senior
Advocate on behalf of petitioner assisted by
Kunwar Siddharth Singh and the learned
A.G.A.

2. Through this petition, the petitioner
has challenged the charge sheet no. 36 of