# Rajendra Prasad Kanaujiya v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 1 ILRA 979
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-01-21
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 1059 of 2019
- **Bench:** Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, Pankaj Bhatia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajendra-prasad-kanaujiya-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45307
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

C.S.C., Sri Ram Bahadur Singh

A. The falling standard of legal profession
- instituted a one Judge enquiry -
approved by the Hon'ble Administrative
Committee-a resolution was taken to
authorize the Hon'ble Chief Justice to
take appropriate remedial action. (Para 3,
4, 5, 9 & 10)

In absence of any training or good educational
background law graduates cannot be expected
to integrate to the high standard tradition, and
professed proficiency which is required for
practicing in the High Court - The Supreme
Court in the case of R.K. Anand (supra) has
considered this issue and has issued directions
to the High Courts to frame the Rules for holding
examinations like the Advocate-on-Record for
High Courts and courts subordinate thereto -
The Madras High Court also considered the
same issue in WP (MD) No.7257 of 2019,
A.Kannan v. High Court of Madras and others -
issued certain directions for the improvement of
the standard of the Bar. (Para 6 & 7)

Held: - This Court should also consider to
frame the Rule in the line of the other High
Courts to arrest the deterioration of standard of
legal profession which also affect the entire justice
delivery system. The Hon'ble Chief Justice has
been requested to consider the remedial
measure suggested in the enquiry report in the
light of the facts recorded in this order and the
directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
A.Kannan (supra). (Para 9 & 11)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of cases cited: -

1.Sandeep Patel and others v. State of U.P. and
others, Writ-C No. 17720 of 2014

2.Committee of Management, Sri Shankar
Shiksha Prasar Samiti and another v. State of
U.P. and others, 2009 (2) AWC 1871 All

## Text

1 All. Rajendra Prasad Kanaujiya Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
979
(2020)1ILR 979

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.01.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ C No. 1059 of 2019

Rajendra Prasad Kanaujiya ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ravi Shanker Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ram Bahadur Singh

A. The falling standard of legal profession
- instituted a one Judge enquiry -
approved by the Hon'ble Administrative
Committee-a resolution was taken to
authorize the Hon'ble Chief Justice to
take appropriate remedial action. (Para 3,
4, 5, 9 & 10)

In absence of any training or good educational
background law graduates cannot be expected
to integrate to the high standard tradition, and
professed proficiency which is required for
practicing in the High Court - The Supreme
Court in the case of R.K. Anand (supra) has
considered this issue and has issued directions
to the High Courts to frame the Rules for holding
examinations like the Advocate-on-Record for
High Courts and courts subordinate thereto -
The Madras High Court also considered the
same issue in WP (MD) No.7257 of 2019,
A.Kannan v. High Court of Madras and others -
issued certain directions for the improvement of
the standard of the Bar. (Para 6 & 7)

Held: - This Court should also consider to
frame the Rule in the line of the other High
Courts to arrest the deterioration of standard of
legal profession which also affect the entire justice
delivery system. The Hon'ble Chief Justice has
been requested to consider the remedial
measure suggested in the enquiry report in the
light of the facts recorded in this order and the
directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
A.Kannan (supra). (Para 9 & 11)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of cases cited: -

1.Sandeep Patel and others v. State of U.P. and
others, Writ-C No. 17720 of 2014

2.Committee of Management, Sri Shankar
Shiksha Prasar Samiti and another v. State of
U.P. and others, 2009 (2) AWC 1871 All

3. A.Kannan v. High Court of Madras and
others, WP (MD) No.7257 of 2019

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh
Baghel, J. & Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.)

1. The petitioner has preferred this
writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution for the following relief:

"PRAYER

It is, therefore, Most respectfully
prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to-:

(i) issue a writ order or direction in
the nature of Mandamus by direct to the
Respondents not to delete the fruit Juice Shop
of the petitioner which is located at Town Hall
Road Shahjahanpur on the land of Arya
Samaz Mandir on Rent.

(ii) issue any other suitable writ,
order or direction as this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.

(iii) To award the cost petition in
favour of the petitioner."
980 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. We have carefully perused the
pleadings and relief of the writ petition.

3. We experience that a large number
of writ petitions are filed in this Court with
some what similar pleadings and relief.
With a view to hilight the falling standard
of some of the members of the bar, the
entire writ petition with its grounds and
prayer is extracted below in verbatim:

"1. That this is first writ petition
on behalf of petitioner before this Hon'ble
Court by seeking present relief. Petitioner
never preferred any other earlier writ
petition on his behalf before this Hon'ble
Court by seeking present relief.

2. That the petitioner in land of
Arya Samaz Mandir located at Town Hall
Road Shahjahanpur have one fruit Juice
Shop from the Year 2004 on Rent of
Rs.300 and regularly paid the same and no
dispute between the them till date and
petitioner take electricity connection on
13.04.05. A Photo Copy of some rent
receipts as well as electricity connection
Receipt
are
collectively
been
filed
herewith and marked as Marked as
Annexure No. 1 to this writ Petition.

3. That it is most important to
mentioned here that petitioner shop
distance from the Road 15 Fit and entire
road Track numbers of building are
constructed and no any building has been
disturbed by the Respondents. A Current
Photo Graph of the petitioner Shop as well
as located area are being filed herewith
and Marked as Annexure No. 2 to this
writ Petition.

4. That the petitioner's family
livelihood depends up on this shop but
Respondents illegally want to delete the
shop of petitioner i.e. against the natural
justice and eye of law.

5. That the Respondents till date
no any Notice has been given to the
petitioner regarding the delete his Fruit
Juice Shop but illegally want to delete the
shop.

6. That the petitioner has no
speedy remedy except approach this
Hon'ble Court.

7. That the petitioner is very
poor and law abiding person of the
society.

8. That in view of aforesaid facts
and circumstances of the case, it is
expedient in the interest of justice that this
Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased
to allow this writ petition and direct to the
Respondents not to delete the fruit Juice
Shop of the petitioner which is located at
Town Hall Road Shahjahanpur on the
land of Arya Samaz Mandir on Rent, in the
interest of justice may be done and/or pass
such other and further order as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper
under the facts and circumstances of the
case, otherwise petitioner shall suffer
irreparable loss and injury.

9. That there is no other
alternative remedy except to approach this
Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, inter alia amongst
other following grounds:-
GROUNDS

A. Because, the petitioner in
land of Arya Samaz Mandir located at
Town Hall Road Shahjahanpur have one
fruit Juice Shop from the Year 2004 on
Rent of Rs.300 and regularly paid the
same and no dispute between the them till
date
and
petitioner
take
electricity
connection on 13.04.05.

B. Because, it is most important
to mentioned here that petitioner shop
distance from the Road 15 Fit and entire
road Track numbers of building are
1 All. Rajendra Prasad Kanaujiya Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
981
constructed and no any building has been
disturbed by the Respondents.

C.
Because,
the
petitioner's
family livelihood depends up on this shop
but Respondents illegally want to delete
the shop of petitioner i.e. against the
natural justice and eye of law.

D. Because, the Respondents till
date no any Notice has been given to the
petitioner regarding the delete his Fruit
Juice Shop but illegally want to delete the
shop.

E. Because, the petitioner has no
speedy remedy except approach this
Hon'ble Court.

F.
Because,
the
action
of
Respondents is against the eye of law."

4. The then Hon'ble Chief Justice
Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud (as His Lordship
was then) had instituted a one Judge
enquiry vide his order dated 12.03.2015.
Amongst others one of the reference of the
enquiry was as under:

"It has become necessary for the
High Court to make a comprehensive
assessment of the situation, on the
administrative
side
and
to
take
appropriate remedial measures. Hence, it
has been considered necessary to entrust
the matter on the administrative side to a
judge of the High Court, Hon'ble Mr.
Justice P.K.S. Baghel who has been
nominated in the matter will submit a
report on all aspects including those
having a bearing on the need to ensure
safe and orderly conditions of work in and
the proper discharge of judicial functions
by the district courts of the State of Uttar
Pradesh. The report would indicate
appropriate remedial measures."

5. The said enquiry was conducted
by one of us (Justice P.K.S.Baghel). The
Enquiry Judge has submitted its report to
the Hon'ble Chief Justice and was
approved
by
the
Administrative
Committee on 04.09.2015.

6. The Enquiry Judge has made a
study on depth on the falling standard of
the Bar across the State. The Chapter IV of
the report deals with the said aspect. The
material part of the report is extracted in
extentio:

".........The Law Commission in
its Fourteenth Report had expressed its
deep concern about falling standard of the
Bar. The Commission had considered the
situations prevailing in the 1950s. Its
report was submitted in 1958. The report
of the Law Commission could not get due
attention by various stakeholders. It would
be inappropriate for the Committee to
make any comment on a statutory body,
Bar Council of India, but now BCI itself
has admitted that "situation is slipping out
of hand" and "Sadly, this profession has
fallen under a cloud."

3. Observation of Bar Council
of India:

In the year 2014, the Bar
Council of India itself has painted a very
gloomy picture of legal profession in the
statement of objects and reasons of
recently framed statutory rule: "Bar
Council of India Certificate of Practice
and Renewal Rules, 2014". The statement
of objects and reasons for enacting the
said rule was that it was felt by the Bar
Council that a definite trend was visible
that the situation is slipping out of the
hands of the advocates who practice law.
The Bar Council has also expressed its
concern over the falling standard of legal
profession and it felt urgent need for
laying
down
some
conditions
for
practicing law in different courts.
982 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

***

***

***

Under these circumstances it
appears that a definite trend is visible that
the control of Bar Associations and of
other elected bodies under the Advocates
Act is slipping out of the hands of the
advocates who practice law. It is also
being experienced that after certificate of
enrolment is issued to an advocate,
practically
no
communicative
and
continuing contact survives between him
and the Council.

***

***

***

The Bar Council of India has
also come to know that a number of fake
(farzi) persons (without any Law Degree
or enrolment certificate) are indulged in
Legal practice and are cheating the
Litigants, courts and other stake-holders;
and neither the Bar Associations nor the
concerned State Bar Councils have any
control
over
such
fake
persons.
Shockingly, it has come to the notice of the
Council that at some places, the officebearers of Bar Associations or some voteseekers knowingly make such people
members and voters of their Associations
with a motive to get their votes in the
elections of Bar Associations or Bar
Councils. Similarly, many persons, after
getting enrolled as Advocates in any State
Bar Council, get involve in PropertyDealings, contract or switch over to some
other business, profession or job and have
no
more
concern
with
the
Legal
profession.
Such
"non-practicing
Advocates" are sometimes being used by
some of the office-bearers/ candidates for
elections of Bar Associations or Bar
Councils (only for their votes). But in fact,
the Council has realized that such practice
is degrading the standard of Legal
profession, and this mal-practice has to be
stopped.

*** *** ***

4. Suggestions of the First Law
Commission:

The Law Commission in its
Fourteenth Report, while dealing with
falling standard of the Bar, made several
suggestions. It aptly observed as under:

"1. A well-organized system of
judicial
administration
postulates
a
properly equipped and efficient Bar. ....

2. The evidence given before us
reveals a general consensus that there is a
fall in efficiency and standards at the Bar.
The recent recruit to the profession is said
to be inferior in his legal equipment, less
pains-taking and in a hurry to find work.

*** *** ***

55. ...The overcrowding in the
profession is undoubtedly one of the
causes which has contributed to the
growth of the evil. Persons entering the
profession, whose economic conditions
make it impossible for them to wait before
they can start earning a living or who have
waited without success, are driven to these
practices in their struggle for existence. It
not infrequently, happens, however, that
lawyers who have been driven to these
practices in the earlier stages of their
career in their need to earn a living
continue these practices even after they
have gathered considerable practice at the
Bar and some of them even after they have
attained seniority in the profession......

*** *** ***

6. Declining standard of Bar -
An example:

While dealing with the falling
standard of the Bar, I wish to venture
about the standard of High Court's Bar. I
am not oblivious of the fact that I am
transgressing the terms of reference. But
in the larger interest of the Institution, I
wish to draw the attention to the present
standard of young lawyers. This Court in
the case of Sandeep Patel and others v.
1 All. Rajendra Prasad Kanaujiya Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
983
State of U.P. and others, Writ-C No.
17720 of 2014, decided on 03 April 2014,
has extracted the pleadings of a writ
petition and quoted the same extensively in
the judgment, as under:

"2. Some of the paragraphs of
the writ petition need to be quoted, which
are as under;

"3. That the matter is very urgent
because
the
respondents
taking
the
counseling
on
15-03-2014
which
petitioners are very loss if not stay the
B.T.C. Counseling.

3A- That the all petitioners
O.B.C. categories. The petitioners in the
merit list in B.T.C. Counseling 2013, so
that petitioner No. 1 namely Sandeep Patel
counseling in Allahabad district and
others
counseling
district
Faizabad/
Ambedkar.

5. That the petitioner No. 1
selected the district Allahabad and 9
others
district
choice
of
alternative
chances if district Allahabad paid the free
seat and then other district select by the
petitioner. And petitioners No. 2 to 5 select
the district the Ambedkar and 9 others
district alternative free paid of the
aforesaid district. For kind perusal of this
Hon'ble Court a photo copies of the choice
of district is being filed herewith and
marked as ANNEXURE NO. 2 to this writ
petition.

6. That the petitioners after
counseling informal final selected list and
others districts option of the available
aforesaid mentioned. For kind perusal of
this Hon'ble Court a photo copies of the
selection list is being filed herewith and
marked as ANNEXURE NO. 3 to this writ
petition.

7. That the petitioners are
available chances of the free seat in others
districts which 9 alternative districts
aforesaid mentioned.

8.
That
the
Respondents
publicity in Daily News Paper (Dainik
Jagran) 7 March, 2014 declare of the
B.T.C. Counseling dated 15-03-2014 and
other alternative option full free paid of
the B.T.C. Seat then will be fill up paid
seat in aforesaid district. For kind perusal
of this Hon'ble Court a photo copies of the
Daily News Paper (Dainik Jagran) is
being filed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE NO. 4 to this writ petition.

9. That the petitioners are
belong poor family. The petitioners
selected the in merit list of B.T.C. 2013.

11. That the petitioner No. 6 is
SC. candidate belong to poor family. The
petitioner No. 6 is select candidate in
B.T.C. Session 2013 which multiple marks
207.51 and select option of 10 district. For
kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court A photo
copy of the allotted district is being filed
herewith and marked as ANNEXURE
NO. 6 to this writ petition.

13. That the respondents not available
to aforesaid district choice of the petitioner No. 6,
so that respondents are act illegal."

3. When the matter was taken up,
some Senior Advocates, namely, Sri P. N.
Saxena, Sri Ashok Khare, Sri R.K. Ojha
and Sri G.K. Singh were present in the
Court. They also expressed their concern
on the falling standard of the Bar. One of
the learned Senior Advocates gave a
suggestion that like Supreme Court this
Court may also consider to hold some
examination for Junior Advocates."

Most of the Judges of the High
Court have also expressed their deep
concern about such type of pleadings
which has become a commonplace even in
the civil side. Similar is the situation in the
District Courts also.

7. Need to frame rules likewise
Advocate-on-Record of the Supreme
Court:
984 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

The Supreme Court in the case
of R.K. Anand (supra) has considered this
issue and has issued directions to the High
Courts to frame the Rules for holding
examinations like the Advocate-on-Record
for High Courts and courts subordinate
thereto. Paragraph-243 of the judgment
reads thus:

"243. In order to avoid any such
controversies in future all the High Courts
that have so far not framed rules under
Section 34 of the Advocates Act are
directed to frame the rules without any
further delay. It is earnestly hoped that all
the High Courts shall frame the rules
within four months from today. The High
Courts may also consider framing rules
for having Advocates-on-Record on the
pattern of the Supreme Court of India."
(Emphasis supplied)

It is significant to mention that
there is a direction of this Court also in
the case of Committee of Management,
Sri Shankar Shiksha Prasar Samiti and
another v. State of U.P. and others, 2009
(2) AWC 1871 All, wherein this Court has
issued a direction on the judicial side to
conduct an examination. The direction of
the Court as contained in paragraph-29(3)
of the judgment, which is relevant for the
purposes, is quoted below:

"3. Rules relating to Advocate on
Record, as framed by the Supreme Court
of India should also be framed by the High
Court, by which, one advocate is made
answerable and responsible for receiving
affidavit,
counter-affidavit,
rejoinderaffidavit, notices, etc. and would also be
made answerable to the Court and
adjournment could only be sought by that
counsel in the Court."

It
is
noteworthy
that
in
compliance of the direction of the Supreme
Court, the High Court of Judicature at
Patna has framed the rules, called as
"Registration of Advocates as Advocateson-Record of the Patna High Court Rules"
and added the said Rules as Sub-Part "D"
in Chapter XXIV, Part V of the Patna High
Court Rules, 1916.

8. Conclusion:

Rules relating to Advocate-onRecord are, therefore, a crying need of our
times but have remained a far cry. If we
continue to blink over this issue further, an
irreversible situation will arise. In future
the operation of the rule can be extended
phase-wise to cover District Courts also."

7. In the State of U.P. the law
colleges were run by Universities and in
some of the affiliated/associated colleges.
After the legal education has been made
part of the Bar Council's function, in Uttar
Pradesh in last decade more than 50 (fifty)
colleges have been recognized by the Bar
Council. These colleges are self financed
and the standard of education imparted in
these colleges are disappointing. The law
graduates from these self financed colleges
are getting enrolled in the High Court as
an advocate and without any experience of
work in any court these untrained law
graduates from self financed private
institutions are the main cause for the
concern regarding the standard of the Bar.
These fresh graduates did not get training
from the chamber of the senior lawyers
and the district courts. Hence, in absence
of any training or good educational
background they cannot be expected to
integrate to the high standard tradition, and
professed proficiency which is required for
practising in the High Court. Recently, the
Madras High Court has also considered the
same issue in WP (MD) No.7257 of 2019,
A.Kannan v. High Court of Madras and
others. In which the Court has issued
certain directions for the improvement of
the standard of the Bar. Some of the
1 All. Rajendra Prasad Kanaujiya Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
985
observations made therein are extracted
hereunder:

"....Now, a new trend has crept
in the legal profession, namely, the Law
Graduates after coming out the Law
Colleges without any experience in the
legal profession, start appearing before
the court without even given the material
details in the affidavit and arguing the
matters. As a result, the Court is unable to
effectively adjudicate the matters. There is
no assistance from those Lawyers. It
requires at least 3 to 5 years experience in
Senior's office, so that, they will be able to
know from the Seniors as to what are all
the particulars to be collected from the
parties, how a petition/plaint should be
drafted and what are all the things to be
omitted and how the case should be
presented before the Court and how the
queries raised by the Court could be
answered by the Advocate. Though they
have the fundamental knowledge, without
the basic procedures followed by the Trial
Courts, they venture into the legal
profession, which makes very difficult for
the Courts to render justice effectively.

3.....This Court faced a lot of
problems
because
of
inexperienced
Advocates appearing before the Court,
without knowing the basic procedures. The
effort of Mr. Kannan, Petitioner in person,
has to be appreciated and his efforts are
only to enhance the quality of advocacy
and only persons who have got knowledge
in law and procedure which could be
tested by an examination, could be
allowed to appear before the Court.

5. .....This court has got power
under Article 225 and 226 of the
Constitution of India, apart from Section
34 of the Advocates Act to frame such
Rules, like, the Supreme Court Rules,
2013. Only those who are qualified in the
examination to be conducted by the Court
as per the proposed new Rules, the
Supreme Court Rules, 2013, the Advocate
with sound knowledge in law would be
made as Advocate on Record. This
exercise will enable the Court to get good
assistance from the Advocates on Record
and it is necessary to use the judicial time
qualitatively. Prescribing such Rules is not
to get away any individual Advocate or
section of Advocates from the High Court.
It is only to test the knowledge of the
Advocates who would be in a better
position
to
adjudicate
the
matters
effectively. Any advocate who has got
sound knowledge in law and in current
position of law and the latest judgments
could easily crack the said test."

8. Some other High Courts have also
framed the Rules in compliance of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in
R.K.Anand (supra) case.

9. It is high time that this Court
should also consider to frame the Rule in
the line of the other High Courts to arrest
the deterioration of standard of legal
profession which also affect the entire
justice delivery system.

10. As discussed above, the enquiry
report of the Enquiry Judge was approved
by the Hon'ble Administrative Committee
on 04.09.2015 and a resolution was taken
to authorize the Hon'ble Chief Justice to
take appropriate remedial action.

11. In view of the above, we request
the Hon'ble Chief Justice to consider the
remedial measure suggested in the enquiry
report in the light of the facts recorded in
this order and the directions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in R.K.Anand (supra).
986 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

12. In the present case, having regard
to the facts mentioned above, we do not
find any ground to interfere in the matter.
The
writ
petition
is,
accordingly,
dismissed.
----------
(2020)1ILR 986

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.12.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ C No. 5712 of 2017
And
Writ C No. 58295 of 2016

Upper Ganges Sugar & Industries Ltd.
Bijnor ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anil Kishore Sharma, Sri Shrey Sharma,
Sri Anil Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. The Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling
on Land Holdings Act, 1960 - Section 10 -
Notice to tenure-holders failing to submit a
statement or submitting an incomplete or
incorrect
statement
-
Section
11
-
Determination of surplus land where no
objection
is
filed
-
Section
12
-
Determination of the surplus land by the
Prescribed Authority where an objection is
filed - Section 13 - Appeal to Commissioner
- Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5- delay
condonation application - allowed - Appeal
maintainable - No illegality in the impugned
order.

Section 13 provides a right of appeal to a party
aggrieved by an order under Sub-section (2) of
Section 11 or Section 12 and no other -
Prescribed authority has passed an order
under section 12(1) - The proceedings of
section 12 begin on the notice of section 10 (2)
and objection to the said notice is decided
under section 12 (1). (Para-7)

Held :- The objection to the notice given
under section 10 (2) of the 'Act 1960' will be
disposed of by the prescribed authority through
the procedure described under section 12 (1)
of the 'Act 1960' and the order passed will be
appealable before Commissioner under Section
13 of 'Act 1960 '. Therefore, in the present
case appeal made under Section 13 of Act 1960
is maintainable. (Para-10)

B. The Uttar Pradesh Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 -
Section 38 - the appellate Court shall
have all the powers and the privileges of
a Civil Court and follow the procedure for
the hearing and disposal of appeals laid
down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 41
Rule 3A - Application for condonation of
delay.

If the court considers that there is no reason
for rejecting the application without issuing
notice to the respondent , the notice thereof
shall be issued to the respondent - In this
case, without giving any notice to the
respondent/petitioner, the application for delay
condonation was allowed - this process defect
has been corrected by hearing both the parties
to the above order on recall (withdrawal)
application and placing the same in view of the
order passed earlier. (Para 10)

Held: - While disposing of the application for
condonation of delay, the court should keep a
liberal and practical view and not a technical
or conservative view. Therefore, in the
present case, the Commissioner has not
committed any legal error by adopting a
liberal and practical approach but has followed
the judicial principles laid down by the
Supreme
Court.
When
considering
an
application for 'delay condonation', the court
should keep a liberal, practical, justiceoriented, non-orthodox view, because the
court is obliged to remove injustice, not to
legalize injustice. (Para 8 & 10)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-7)