# Ramesh Chandra Shukla & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 2 ILRA 880
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-05-06
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 57457 of 2012
- **Bench:** Ram Surat Ram (Maurya
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramesh-chandra-shukla-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-42997
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

High Court Rules Chapter, XXII Rule-2Practice and procedure-pending disposal
of Writ Petition on-issuance noticewhether
deemed
petition
admitted?
held-'No'-under
writ
jurisdiction
considering
speedy
disposal-naturebefore admission notices issued to finally
decide the petition after hearing both
parties-objection of counsel overruledcase be listed for admission.

Held: Para-8
Thus it is now well settled that High Court is
competent
to
issue
notice
to
the
respondents before admission and can
decide the writ petition finally at the stage
of admission. Present writ petition arises
out of proceedings under Section 33/39 of
U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. The various
proceedings provided under U.P. Land
Revenue
Act,
1901
are
summary
proceeding and require to be decided
expeditiously.
Therefore
writ
petitions
arising out of the orders passed in the
proceedings U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901
also require for speedy disposal. With the
object of speedy disposal, notices has been
issued
to
the
respondents,
pending
admission so that the writ petition can be
decided at the admission stage.

Case Law discussed:
AIR 1987 All 360(DB); 2000 Cr.L.J. 569 (F.B.);
AIR 2003 SC 2588; AIR 1996 SC 1092; (2005)
6 SCC 344.

## Text

880 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
inspection on 28/4/2009 and no period prior to
the said date can be taken for assessment.
However, we having taken the view that the
petitioner was entitled for opportunity to file
an
objection
against
the
provisional
assessment notice dated 05/9/2009, we leave it
open to the petitioner to raise such objection
as permissible regarding the provisional
assessment, and do not feel it necessary to
decide the said submissions in this writ
petition.

30. We having held that the
assessment order dated 30/9/2009 deserves
to be set-aside on the grounds as indicated
above, and fresh assessment be made, the
submission of the petitioner challenging the
Office Order dated 19/6/2009 needs no
consideration in this writ petition. The above
submission is left open to be considered in an
appropriate case.

31. In the result the assessment order
dated 30/9/2009, is set-aside. The writ
petition is disposed of. The petitioner is
allowed 15 days time to file objection to
the provisional assessment notice dated
05/9/2009 before the Executive Engineer
and the Executive Engineer thereafter
shall proceed to finalise the assessment
keeping in view the observations made by
us in this judgment.

32. Parties shall bear their own
costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.05.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA), J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 57457 of 2012

Ramesh Chandra Shukla & Anr. Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri M.D. Mishra, Sri R.K. Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri D.D. Chauhan, Sri D.P. Mishra
Sri O.P. Mishra, Sri Diwakar Singh

High Court Rules Chapter, XXII Rule-2Practice and procedure-pending disposal
of Writ Petition on-issuance noticewhether
deemed
petition
admitted?
held-'No'-under
writ
jurisdiction
considering
speedy
disposal-naturebefore admission notices issued to finally
decide the petition after hearing both
parties-objection of counsel overruledcase be listed for admission.

Held: Para-8
Thus it is now well settled that High Court is
competent
to
issue
notice
to
the
respondents before admission and can
decide the writ petition finally at the stage
of admission. Present writ petition arises
out of proceedings under Section 33/39 of
U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. The various
proceedings provided under U.P. Land
Revenue
Act,
1901
are
summary
proceeding and require to be decided
expeditiously.
Therefore
writ
petitions
arising out of the orders passed in the
proceedings U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901
also require for speedy disposal. With the
object of speedy disposal, notices has been
issued
to
the
respondents,
pending
admission so that the writ petition can be
decided at the admission stage.

Case Law discussed:
AIR 1987 All 360(DB); 2000 Cr.L.J. 569 (F.B.);
AIR 2003 SC 2588; AIR 1996 SC 1092; (2005)
6 SCC 344.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Surat Ram
(Maurya), J.)

1. Heard Sri M.D. Mishra, for the
petitioners.
2 All]. Ramesh Chandra Shukla & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
881

2. This writ petition was listed for
"admission"
in
the
cause
list
on
05.05.2014.
The
counsel
for
the
petitioners submitted that writ petition
was heard for admission on 06.11.2012.
The Court, after hearing the arguments,
recorded prima facie satisfaction that writ
petition raised substantial issue for
consideration and issued notice to the
respondents. Chapter XXII Rule 2 of the
High Court Rules, provides that if the
Court does not find sufficient reasons to
admit the application it may reject it.
Where the application is not so rejected,
notice thereof shall be served on such
opposite parties named in the application
and on such other persons, if any, as the
Court may direct. After issue of the
notice, the writ petition is liable to be
listed for "hearing" on its turn. Chapter
VIII
Rule
33
confers
exclusive
jurisdiction to Chief Justice to expedite
the hearing of the case. Hearing of the
writ petition on merit can only be done
when writ petition is listed for "hearing"
either on its turn or expedited by Chief
Justice. The writ petition is wrongly listed
for admission and should be listed for
hearing on its turn.

3. I have considered the arguments
of the counsel for the petitioner. In
exercise of powers under Article 225 of
Constitution of India, Allahabad High
Court Rules, 1952 has been framed.
Chapter XXII provides procedure for the
writ under Article 226 of the Constitution,
other than a writ in the nature of Habeas
Corpus.
Rule
1
provides
for
filing/receiving of the writ petition by
Division Bench or Single Judge of the
natures as specified in it. Rule 2 provides
for notice which reads as "if the Court
does not find sufficient reasons to admit
the application it may reject it. Where the
application is not so rejected, notice
thereof shall be served on such opposite
parties". According to the counsel for the
petitioner as the notice has been issued
06.11.2012 as such the writ petition be
treated to be admitted. The order dated
06.11.2012 directing the writ petition to
be listed for admission is not according to
the provisions of Rule 2 and has no
meaning and it shall be deemed to be
admitted.

4. The word "admit" means "to
accept for the purpose of consideration"
as given in Law Lexicon. The Bench
hearing the writ petition under Chapter
XXII Rule 1 of the High Court Rules has
been given power to admit or reject it.
Admission under Chapter XXII Rule 1 is
not automatic. When Bench hearing the
writ petition under Chapter XXII Rule 1
itself directed the writ petition to be listed
for admission, then merely notice has
been issued to the respondents it can not
be deemed to be admitted. There is no bar
to hear the respondents at the admission
stage. Chapter XXII Rule 5 provides for
lodging caveat. If a respondent files
caveat then the petitioner is required to
give him notice of the writ petition and he
is usually heard at the time of admission.
Thus it is clear that the Court can hear the
respondents at the time of admission and
for that purpose it has discretion to issue
notice to the respondent before admission.
The controversy as to whether the
respondents have right to be heard at the
stage of admission came for consideration
before Division Bench of this Court in
Chandrajit Vs. Ganeshiya, AIR 1987 All
360 (DB), in the matter arising out of
caveat under Section 148-A C.P.C. and
Division Bench held that the caveator has
right to oppose admission and can be
heard. In view of Division Bench
882 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
judgment, Chapter XXII Rule 5 has been
amended by Notification No. 276/VIII-C2 dated 04.07.1989, providing Rule for
lodging caveat in the writ petition. A Full
Bench of this Court in Satya Pal and
others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2000
Cr.L.J. 569 (F.B.) upheld the practice of
this Court to issue notice to the
respondent
pending
admission
and
deciding the writ petition finally at the
admission stage. Thus there is no
substance in the arguments that on the
notice being issued, the writ petition shall
be deemed to be admitted and order
directing the writ petition to be listed for
"admission" is contrary to Chapter XXII
Rule 2.

5. It has been consistently held by
Courts in the world that Rules/ procedure
are framed to achieve the object of speedy
justice.
The
Constitution
Bench
of
Supreme Court in Sardar Amarjit Singh
Kalra v. Pramod Gupta, AIR 2003 SC
2588, held that Laws of procedure are
meant to regulate effectively, assist and
aid the object of doing substantial and real
justice and not to foreclose even an
adjudication on merits of substantial
rights of citizen under personal, property
and other laws. Procedure has always
been viewed as the handmaid of justice
and not meant to hamper the cause of
justice or sanctify miscarriage of justice.

6. Supreme Court in Puran Singh v.
State of Punjab, AIR 1996 SC 1092 held
that the object of Article 226 is to provide
a quick and inexpensive remedy to
aggrieved
parties.
Power
has
consequently been vested in the High
Courts to issue to any person or authority,
including
in
appropriate
cases
any
government, within the jurisdiction of the
High Court, orders or writs, including
writs in the nature of habeas corpus,
mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and
certiorari. Sole object of writ jurisdiction
to provide quick and inexpensive remedy
to
the
person
who
invokes
such
jurisdiction is likely to be defeated. When
the High Court exercises extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution, it aims at securing a very
speedy and efficacious remedy to a
person, whose legal or constitutional right
has been infringed. If all the elaborate and
technical rules laid down in the Code are
to be applied to writ proceedings the very
object and purpose is likely to be
defeated.

7. While dealing with the Case
Management, Supreme Court in Salem
Advocate Bar Assn. (II) v. Union of India,
(2005) 6 SCC 344, provides as follows:

1. Writ petitions: The High Court
shall, at the stage of admission or issuing
notice before admission categorise the
writ petitions other than the writ of habeas
corpus, into three categories depending on
the urgency with which the matter should
be dealt with: the fast track, the normal
track and the slow track. The petitions in
the fast track shall invariably be disposed
of within a period not exceeding six
months while the petitions in the normal
track should not take longer than a year.
The petitions in the slow track, subject to
the pendency of other cases in the court,
should ordinarily be disposed of within a
period of two years.

8. Thus it is now well settled that
High Court is competent to issue notice to
the respondents before admission and can
decide the writ petition finally at the stage
of admission. Present writ petition arises
out of proceedings under Section 33/39 of
2 All]. Anoop Srivastava & Ors. Vs. Registrar General High Court, Allahabad & Ors.
883
U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. The
various proceedings provided under U.P.
Land Revenue Act, 1901 are summary
proceeding and require to be decided
expeditiously. Therefore writ petitions
arising out of the orders passed in the
proceedings U.P. Land Revenue Act,
1901 also require for speedy disposal.
With the object of speedy disposal,
notices
has
been
issued
to
the
respondents, pending admission so that
the writ petition can be decided at the
admission stage.

9. The objection raised by the
counsel for the petitioner is overruled.
List for admission in next cause list. On
that day writ petition be heard finally.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.01.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.
THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 57786 of 2012

Anoop Srivastava & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Registrar General High Court, Allahabad
& Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri H.R. Mishra, Sri S.K. Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Yashwant Varma, Sri Ashish Mishra

Allahabad
High
Court
Bench
Secretaries(condition
of
service)
Rules
2005-as
amended
2012-Rule-6(i)-
Appointment
on
post
of
Bench
Secretaries
Grade
I-eligibility
for
appearing
in
examination-petitioner
working
as
Consol
operator-seeking
direction
to
participate
in
written
examination-held-except R.O. And A.R.O.
under rules framed by Hon'ble Chief
Justice-providing condition of appointmentincludes criteria for appointment-plea of
Art. 14 of constitution not available-channel
of promotion of Consol operator-to that
post of computer operator grade-C-than
programmer grade- 2 onwards-can not be
allowed to change their promotion zonepetition dismissed.

Held: Para-18 & 19
18. So far as the submission of the
petitioners that they are possessed of
better
qualification
vis-a-vis
Review
Officer/Assistant
Review
Officer
is
concerned, we are of the opinion that the
submission of the petitioners has no
relevance having regard to the statutory
rules,
which
define
the
zone
of
consideration.

19. In the totality of the circumstances
on record, we find no good ground to
interfere either with the amended rules
or with the process of selection which
has been initiated for appointment as
Bench Secretary Grade-I.

Case Law discussed:
(2011) 6 SCC 725.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.)

1. Heard Sri H.R. Mishra, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri S.K.
Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners
and Sri Ashish Mishra, learned counsel
for the respondent-High Court.

2. Petitioners, before this Court,
seek quashing of the notification dated
17th August, 2012, whereby Clause 6(i)
of the Allahabad High Court Bench
Secretaries (Condition of Service) Rules,
2005 (hereinafter referred to as the
"Rules, 2005") has been amended. They
also pray for a writ of mandamus
directing the respondent-High Court to
permit the petitioners to appear in the