# Ram Ayodhya and others v. State of U.P. and another

- **Citation:** (2011) 3 ILRA 1202
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-10-18
- **Bench:** Shabihul Hasnain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-ayodhya-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-42064
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 190
(a) (b)-Power of Magistrate-if Magistrate
not satisfied with investigation officers
report-can direct for re-investigation on
treat
the
Protest
application
as
complainant case-but can not proceed to
summon on extraneous material with
protest application-not the part and
partial
of
investigation
report-heldsummoning order not sustainable.

Held: Para 9

I have perused the impugned order. The
learned Magistrate was of the view that
the statements of the complainant and

## Text

1202 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
(supra) as well as by the Writ Court in the
order contempt whereof is alleged.

14. There is a difference of
jurisdiction between consideration of a
bail application under Section 437 Cr.P.C.
and Section 439 Cr.P.C. When there is no
postponement or when in his discretion
the Sessions Judge refuses to grant
interim bail pending consideration of
regular bail then it is not a contempt.
Otherwise it will mean that the Sessions
Judge has no discretion in the matter of
interim bail.

15. The Writ Court had clearly
directed that it will be in the discretion of
the Sessions Judge to consider granting
interim bail. When he has considered it
and refused to grant interim bail then it is
not a contempt. He could in his discretion
grant interim bail on similar terms as were
made applicable to bail applications under
Section 437 Cr.P.C. That was a discretion
given to him by the Writ Court. He has
exercised such discretion. If according to
the applicant the exercise of discretion
was not judicially exercised then he can
avail the remedy available to him in law.
It cannot be brought within the ambit of a
contempt.

16. For the aforesaid reasons, it
cannot be held that the opposite parties
no.1 and 2 have disobeyed the directions
issued by the Writ Court when the
opposite party no.1 has decided the bail
application on the same day and opposite
party no.2 has in his discretion rejected
the prayer for interim bail.

17. The contempt petition is
accordingly dismissed.

18. No order is passed as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.10.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHABIHUL HASNAIN,J.

Service Single No. - 7671 of 2011

Smt. Anita Singh W/O Ajay Kumar Singh

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Basic
Edu. Lko. & Ors.

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rajiv Shukla

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri A.M. Ttripathi
C.S.C.

Constitution of India, Article 21-Right to
live with dignity-petitioner working as
Shiksha Mitra-proceeded on maternity
leave-after leave not allowed to joininspite
of
positive
direction-held-her
fundamental right to leave with dignity
can not be denied-direction issued to
allow her to join immediately.

Held: Para 5

The lady has a right to live with dignity
and to perform all the duties. As a
mother, she has the fundamental right to
live with dignity is a basic norms to the
petitioner. Such norms cannot be flouted
by the opposite parties in the manner
that they are not allowing the petitioner
to join her service.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shabihul Hasnain,J. )

1. Heard Sri Rajiv Shukla, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. M.
Tripathi for the opposite party no. 5 as
3 All] Ram Ayodhya and others V. State of U.P. and another
1203
well as learned Standing counsel for
opposite parties no. 1 and 3 only.

2. Issue notice to opposite parties
no. 2, 4, 6 and 7.

3. The petitioner was selected for the
post of 'Shiksha Mitra' in the session
2005-06. She has completed her training
during 2005. The petitioner is discharging
her duties to the satisfaction of the
opposite parties. On 02.10.2010, the
petitioner has submitted an application for
maternity leave. She gave birth to baby
child on 16.10.2010 at Nazreth Hospital,
Allahabad and thereafter she was on leave
until 02.12.2010. It has been further
submitted that she came back to school
for joining and submitted application
before opposite party no. 6, in turn he has
directed opposite party no. 7 for allowing
the petitioner to join her services. Despite,
application the opposite parties have not
allowed the petitioner to join her services.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has drawn the attention of this Court in
paragraph 4 of the Government Order
dated 15.06.2007, as contained annexure6 to the writ petition. The maternity leave
has been sanctioned to 'Shiksha Mitra'
even otherwise the maternity leave is a
right under Article 21 of the Constitution
of India.

5. The lady has a right to live with
dignity and to perform all the duties. As a
mother, she has the fundamental right to
live with dignity is a basic norms to the
petitioner. Such norms cannot be flouted
by the opposite parties in the manner that
they are not allowing the petitioner to join
her service.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
prays for and is granted three weeks' time
to file rejoinder-affidavit.

7. Meanwhile, the opposite parties
are directed to allow the petitioner to join
the duties immediately and pay the
honorarium as she was getting prior to
proceeding on leave.

8. List this case after four weeks.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.09.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHRI KANT TRIPATHI,J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 18183 of 2011

Ram Ayodhya and others
...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.K. Dubey
Sri V.N. Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate
Sri B.K. Mishra

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 190
(a) (b)-Power of Magistrate-if Magistrate
not satisfied with investigation officers
report-can direct for re-investigation on
treat
the
Protest
application
as
complainant case-but can not proceed to
summon on extraneous material with
protest application-not the part and
partial
of
investigation
report-heldsummoning order not sustainable.

Held: Para 9

I have perused the impugned order. The
learned Magistrate was of the view that
the statements of the complainant and