# Ranjeet Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. and Anr

- **Citation:** (2014) 1 ILRA 248
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-12-18
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 69631 of 2013
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ranjeet-kumar-gupta-v-state-of-u-p-and-anr-42917
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act
1956-Section-16
readwith
U.P.
Civil
Laws(Reforms
and
Amendment
Act
1976)made effective w.e.f. 01.01.1977Section 35 adoption without giving and
taking-without execution of adoption
deed-without
registration-presumption
of adoption not available.

Held: Para-4
Petitioner has shown his age 24 years at
the time of filing this writ petition and,
therefore, by no stretch of imagination, his
adoption could have taken place before
1.1.1977. Therefore, in view of above
requirement of law and considering the fact
that even before this Court, no document
has been placed to establish the claim of
petitioner with respect to his alleged
adoption by the deceased employee, and,
on the contrary, learned counsel for
petitioner admits there does not appear to
be executed any registered adoption deed, I
do not find any infirmity, legal or otherwise,
in the order impugned in this writ petition
warranting interference.

## Text

248 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
representation that his earlier application
for renewal may be processed and his
licence be renewed and when no action
was taken by the authorities, the petitioner
approached the writ court by filing Writ
Petition No. 18626 of 2010 which was
disposed of by an order of the court dated
20.7.2010 directing the authorities to
decide the representation.

5. Based on the aforesaid direction, the
authority, by an order dated 17.2.2010,
rejected the representation for renewal of his
licence. The representation was rejected on
the ground that no application for renewal was
pending on the date when the clarification of
the Railway Board dated 20.5.2009 was
received by the authority and that the
petitioner's writ petition for grant of an
allotment of the stall was rejected by the High
Court. The petitioner being aggrieved by the
said order has filed the present writ petition.

6. Having heard the learned counsel
for the parties at some length and having
perused the record which have been annexed
in the pleadings, the court is of the opinion
that the action of the respondents in rejecting
the application of the petitioner for renewal
was based on non-existing ground. The
contention of the respondents that the
application for renewal was not pending as
on the date of the clarification is patently
erroneous. The clarification of the Railway
Board dated 20.5.2009 indicates that there
was no embargo upon the authority in not
considering the renewal application of the
existing licensees belonging to the reserved
categories under the policy dated 17.12.2007.
In the light of this direction indicated by the
railway board the fault lay with the authority
in not processing the renewal application of
the petitioner in the year 2008 when an
appropriate licence fee was deposited upto
the period 30.11.2008. Had the authority
processed the application at that stage the
situation would not have arisen when the
clarification came into existence on 20.5.2009.

7. Further, writ petition filed by the
petitioner had nothing to do with regard to
the renewal of his licence. The writ
petition was with regard to the fresh
allotment of a stall under the tender
process which was rejected. The cause of
action for the writ petition was totally
different and distinct from the controversy
involved in the present writ petition.

8. In a supplementary affidavit filed
by the petitioner it has come on record
that the stall allotted to the petitioner still
is existing and has not been allotted to any
other person. This fact has not been
denied by the respondents.

9. Consequently, for the reasons stated
aforesaid, the court is of the opinion that the
action of the respondents in rejecting the
petitioner's application for renewal of his
licence was wholly arbitrary and based on
non-existing grounds. The impugned order
cannot be sustained and is quashed. Writ
petition is allowed and a writ of mandamus is
issued commanding the authority to pass
appropriate orders for renewing the licence of
the petitioner within six weeks from the date
of production of a certified copy of this order.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.12.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 69631 of 2013

Ranjeet Kumar Gupta... Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Anr.... ....Respondents
1 All] Ranjeet Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and Anr.
249
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rahul Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act
1956-Section-16
readwith
U.P.
Civil
Laws(Reforms
and
Amendment
Act
1976)made effective w.e.f. 01.01.1977Section 35 adoption without giving and
taking-without execution of adoption
deed-without
registration-presumption
of adoption not available.

Held: Para-4
Petitioner has shown his age 24 years at
the time of filing this writ petition and,
therefore, by no stretch of imagination, his
adoption could have taken place before
1.1.1977. Therefore, in view of above
requirement of law and considering the fact
that even before this Court, no document
has been placed to establish the claim of
petitioner with respect to his alleged
adoption by the deceased employee, and,
on the contrary, learned counsel for
petitioner admits there does not appear to
be executed any registered adoption deed, I
do not find any infirmity, legal or otherwise,
in the order impugned in this writ petition
warranting interference.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. Petitioner claims compassionate
appointment after the death of Smt.
Urmila Devi working on the post of
Auxiliary Nurse and Midwife, contending
that he is her adopted son, but the said
claim has been rejected by Chief Medical
Officer, Mirzapur by means of impugned
order
dated
25.7.2013
stating
that
petitioner did not produce any document
to show that he is adopted son of deceased
employee. Learned counsel for petitioner
during the course of argument admitted
that there does not appear to be executed
any adoption deed and also could not show
as to how and in what manner the adoption
took place in accordance with procedure of
adoption prescribed in Hindu Adoption and
Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred
to as "Act, 1956").

2. Section 16 of Act, 1956, as it
originally was, reads as under:

"16. Presumption as to registered
documents
relating
to
adoption.-
Whenever any document registered under
any law for the time being in force is
produced before any court purporting to
record an adoption made and is signed by
the person giving and the person taking
the child in adoption, the court shall
presume that the adoption has been made
in compliance with the provisions of this
Act unless and until it is disproved."

3. Vide Section 35 of U.P. Civil
Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act,
1976, Section Section 16 of Act, 1956
was amended with effect from 1.1.1977 as
under:

"Renumber section 16 as sub-section
(1) thereof and after sub-section (1) as so
renumbered, the following sub-section (2)
shall be inserted, namely:-

(2) In case of an adoption made on or
after the 1st day of January, 1977 no court in
Uttar Pradesh shall accept any evidence in
proof of the giving and taking of the child in
adoption, except a document recording an
adoption, made and signed by the person
giving and the person taking the child in
adoption and registered under any law for
the time being in force;

Provided that secondary evidence of
such document shall be admitted in the
circumstances and the manner laid down
250 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872."
(emphasis added)

4. Petitioner has shown his age 24
years at the time of filing this writ petition
and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination,
his adoption could have taken place before
1.1.1977. Therefore, in view of above
requirement of law and considering the fact
that even before this Court, no document has
been placed to establish the claim of
petitioner with respect to his alleged adoption
by the deceased employee, and, on the
contrary, learned counsel for petitioner
admits there does not appear to be executed
any registered adoption deed, I do not find
any infirmity, legal or otherwise, in the order
impugned in this writ petition warranting
interference.

5. The writ petition lacks merit.
Dismissed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.01.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR SHARMA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 69747 Of 2013

Public Service Commission U.P...Petitioner
Versus
State Information Commission & Anr...
 Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, Sri U.N.
Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, Sri Balram Singh

Constitution of India, Art.-226-readwith right
to
information
Act
2005-Section8(1)(e)-
Commission seeking exemption- to supply
the copy of answer sheet Math I of PCS
examination 2007-being aggrieved to with
order passed by Appellate authority-on
ground if such request accepted-about 75
staff
shall
be
required
to
supply
information-and shall be flooded by of such
application-held-in view of law developed
by Apex Court in Aditya Bandopdhyay casecommission can not deny to supply the
photocopy
of
desired
answer
sheetapprehension
of
commission
baselesspetition dismissed.

Held: Para-14
We, therefore, hold that in the light of
the decision of the Supreme Court in
Central Board of Secondary Education
(Supra), the examining body does not
hold the answer book in a fiduciary
relationship and the exemption under
Section 8 (1) (e) of the Act is not
available. We, accordingly, do not find
any error in the direction issued by the
State Information Commission.

Case Law discussed:
(2011) 8 SCC 497; (1975) 4 SCC 428.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.)

1. Respondent no.2 filed an application
under the Right to Information Act, 2005
(hereinafter referred as the Act) requesting
the Public Service Commission, U.P.
(hereinafter referred as the Commission) to
supply a photocopy of the mathematics Ist
paper of P.C.S. Mains Examination, 2007.
The Public Information Officer of the
Commission
gave
a
reply
intimating
respondent no.2 that he had already inspected
the answer book and since there was no
provision of revaluation of the answer
book,as such photocopy of the answer book
of the relevant paper could not be supplied.

2. Respondent no.2, being aggrieved
by the response given by the Public
Information Officer, filed an appeal