# Raza Hussain @ Raja Miyan v. Addl. Commissioner Lko. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 9 ILRA 481
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-10
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 2610 of 2023
- **Bench:** Saurabh Lavania
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raza-hussain-raja-miyan-v-addl-commissioner-lko-ors-50818
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Civil Law - Enemy Property Act, 1968 -
Sections 18B & 22A - U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 -
Section
229-B
-
Revenue
suit
for
declaration of rights - Land recorded as
'enemy property' - Jurisdiction of civil
court and revenue authorities excluded by
Section 18B of 1968 Act - Effect of
retrospective validation under Section 22A
- No civil suit maintainable - Entry in
Khatauni not open to judicial scrutiny by
writ court - Remedy lies under 1968 Act -
Petition misconceived and dismissed.

Held: The entry in revenue record showing land
as enemy property managed by the Custodian
bars the jurisdiction of civil courts or authorities
to adjudicate any suit or proceedings, in view of
Section 18B of the Enemy Property Act, 1968,
as amended by the 2017 Amendment Act.
Section
22A
validates
the
retrospective
applicability of Section 18B. The remedy lies
before the Authority under the 1968 Act and not
through writ jurisdiction under Article 226 or by
482 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
invoking Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R.
Act, 1950.

Petition is thus not maintainable and
dismissed accordingly.

Citations:

Raza
Hussain
@
Raja
Miyan
Vs
Addl.
Commissioner, Lucknow & ors.

## Text

9 All. Raza Hussain @ Raja Miyan Vs. Addl. Commissioner Lko. & Ors.
481

34. The Supreme Court, in paragraph
no. 42, had ordered for issuance of letter of
appointment to the concerned candidates
and it was made clear in paragraph no. 44.6
that for all purpose, including seniority,
pay-fixation and other issues, employment
of such candidates shall be reckoned from
the date of appointment orders are issued.

35. In this regard, Anil Tiwari submits
that the petitioner is entitled not only for
appointment on any post lying vacant, his
seniority and other benefits should also be
computed and adjusted according to the
seniority which the petitioner would have
got, had the impugned action not been
taken to the detriment of his interest. The
learned
counsel
for
the
respondents
however submit that the petitioner being
candidate of a different cadre, cannot be
accorded any benefit of seniority or
otherwise as the issue involved relates to a
different cadre altogether.

36. While concluding the judgment, I
find that the Commission was not justified
in filling up two posts by according
horizontal reservation to women candidates
but it could fill up only a single post and,
therefore, the petitioner, being next in the
order of merit, should have been appointed
on the vacant post.

37. In view of the above, the writ
petition succeeds and is partly allowed.

38. Without disturbing any aspect of
the services rendered by respondent nos. 4
and 5 during the pendency of the writ
petition, a direction is issued to the
respondent
nos.
1
and
2
to
offer
appointment to the petitioner on any vacant
post in the cadre. In case, the petitioner
accepts the offer of appointment, the
respondents shall be at liberty to take a
decision in accordance with law with
regard to the benefits that petitioner would
be entitled to as per para 44.6 of the
judgment of Saurav Yadav (supra).
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 481
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Writ-C No. 2610 of 2023

Raza Hussain @ Raja Miyan ...Petitioner
Versus
Addl. Commissioner Lko. & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mahendra Pratap Singh, Ashutosh Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey

Civil Law - Enemy Property Act, 1968 -
Sections 18B & 22A - U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 -
Section
229-B
-
Revenue
suit
for
declaration of rights - Land recorded as
'enemy property' - Jurisdiction of civil
court and revenue authorities excluded by
Section 18B of 1968 Act - Effect of
retrospective validation under Section 22A
- No civil suit maintainable - Entry in
Khatauni not open to judicial scrutiny by
writ court - Remedy lies under 1968 Act -
Petition misconceived and dismissed.

Held: The entry in revenue record showing land
as enemy property managed by the Custodian
bars the jurisdiction of civil courts or authorities
to adjudicate any suit or proceedings, in view of
Section 18B of the Enemy Property Act, 1968,
as amended by the 2017 Amendment Act.
Section
22A
validates
the
retrospective
applicability of Section 18B. The remedy lies
before the Authority under the 1968 Act and not
through writ jurisdiction under Article 226 or by
482 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
invoking Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R.
Act, 1950.

Petition is thus not maintainable and
dismissed accordingly.

Citations:

Raza
Hussain
@
Raja
Miyan
Vs
Addl.
Commissioner, Lucknow & ors.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania, J.)

1. Supplementary affidavit filed by
the learned counsel for the petitioner in the
Court today is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh,
learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
petitioner, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey,
learned State counsel appearing for the
respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Sri Dilip Kumar
Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No. 3/Gram Sabha concerned.

3. By means of this petition, the
petitioner has challenged the order dated
12.01.2023 passed by the respondent No.
1/Additional
Commissioner,
Lucknow
Mandal, Lucknow in a revision filed under
Section 333 U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short "Act of
1950") registered as Case No. 1319 of
2016,
Computerized
Case
No.
C20161000001319 (Raza Hussain @ Raja
Miyan vs. State of U.P. ), whereby, the
respondent No. 1 dismissed the revision
preferred by the petitioner and affirmed the
order dated 08.06.2016, which is also in
issue in this petition, passed by the
respondent No. 2/Assistant Collector First,
Additional Court, Sitapur in Case No.
D2013106400123 (Raza Hussain @ Raja
Miyan vs. State of U.P. ) filed under
Section 229-B of the Act of 1950.

4. By the order dated 08.06.2016, the
respondent No. 2 dismissed the suit/case
preferred by the petitioner for declaration
of rights under Section 229-B of the Act of
1950.

5. The suit/case, indicated above, was
filed in relation to Khata No. 123, Gata
Nos. 87/3, 428, 193/1.250, 835/0.304,
891/0.170,
892/0.174,
893/0.174,
905Ka/0.158,
907/0.235,
908Ka/0.089,
910/0.113,
911/0.166,
913/0.166,
1002/0.231,
1003/0.275,
1004/0.214,
1008/0.138,
1009/0.304,
1012/0.267,
1053/0.300,
1056/0.235,
1057/0.255,
1059/0.352,
1063/0.300,
1148/0.275,
1208/0.138, 1209/0.437,
1210Ka/0.295,
1212/0.223,
1213/0.368,
1214/0.251,
1215/0.375,
1218/1.41,
1260/0.016,
1383/0.089,
1410/0.328,
1412/0.267,
1491/0.336, 1011/1497/0.206.

6. It would be apt to notice that it is an
admitted case of the petitioner that the entry
in revenue record (Khatauni) of the property
in dispute of the Fasli Year 1360 (revenue
record of 1950th year of the Common Era)
indicates that the property is being managed
by Custodian (Jere Intijam Custodian Sahab
Bahadur Zila Sitapur).

7. The land, in issue in suit was
recorded as 'enemy property' in the revenue
records and taking note of the said entry in
revenue records, the suit/case was dismissed
on the ground that in view of Section 18-B of
Enemy Property Act, 1968 (in short "Act of
1968"), the same is not maintainable, as
would appear from the operative portion of
the order dated 08.06.2016, which on
reproduction reads as under:-

"उभयपक्षों िे कवद्वाि अकधवक्तार्ण िे तिों िा सुिा
तथा पत्राविी िा कवकधवत पररशीिि किया र्या। अकधिृत
9 All. Raza Hussain @ Raja Miyan Vs. Addl. Commissioner Lko. & Ors.
483
प्राकधिारी, मुख्य पयगवेक्षि िायागिय शत्रु सम्पकत्त अकभरक्षि
िििऊ िी ओर से उपकस्थत कवद्वाि अकधवक्ता िे बहस िे
समय शत्रु सम्पकत्त (संशोधि और कवकधमान्यिरण) कवधेयि,
2016 प्रस्तुत िर उसिर धारा 18 ि िी ओर ध्याि
आिकषगत िराया और यह िहा कि इस धारा िे अन्तर्गत यह
वाद न्यायािय में िहीं चि सिता ह , क्योंकि शत्रु सम्पकत्त
(संशोधि और कवकधमान्यिरण) अध्यादेश 2016 िे प्रभाव से
शुत्र सम्पकत्त अकधकियम िी धारा 18 ि उपरान्त धारा 18 ि
मूि अकधकियम िे प्रारम्भ िी तारीि से अतैः स्थाकपत रूप से
िी िायेर्ी। धारा 18ि इस प्रिार ह कि "िोई भी कसकवि
न्यायािय या अन्य प्राकधिरण शत्रु सम्पकत्त (संशोधि और
कवकधमान्यिरण) अध्यादेश द्वारा यथा संशोकधत इस अकधकियम िी
कवषयवस्तु वािी किसी सम्पकत्त या इस बाबत िेन्रीय सरिार या
अकभरक्षि द्वारा िी र्यी उभयपक्षों िे कवद्वाि अकधवक्तार्ण िे तिों
िा सुिा तथा पत्राविी िा कवकधवत पररशीिि किया र्या। अकधिृत
प्राकधिारी, मुख्य पयगवेक्षि िायागिय शत्रु सम्पकत्त अकभरक्षि िििऊ
िी ओर से उपकस्थत कवद्वाि अकधवक्ता िे बहस िे समय शत्रु
सम्पकत्त (संशोधि और कवकधमान्यिरण) कवधेयि, 2016 प्रस्तुत िर
उसिर धारा 18 ि िी ओर ध्याि आिकषगत िराया और यह िहा
कि इस धारा िे अन्तर्गत यह वाद न्यायािय में िहीं चि सिता ह ,
क्योंकि शत्रु सम्पकत्त (संशोधि और कवकधमान्यिरण) अध्यादेश
2016 िे प्रभाव से शुत्र सम्पकत्त अकधकियम िी धारा 18 ि
उपरान्त धारा 18 ि मूि अकधकियम िे प्रारम्भ िी तारीि से अतैः
स्थाकपत रूप से िी िायेर्ी। धारा 18ि इस प्रिार ह कि "िोई भी
कसकवि न्यायािय किसी िायगवाही िे सम्बन्ध में िोई भी वाद या
अन्य िायगवाही ग्रहण िहीं िरेर्ा।"
वादीय कवषयवस्तु स्वीिारतैः रािस्व अकभिेिो में िेरे इन्तिाम
िस्टोकियि िाफी िम्बे असे से दिग ह । उक्त प्रकतस्थाकपत धारा
18ि िे प्रभाव से इस सम्पकत्त िे सम्बन्ध में किसी भी न्यायािय
में ग्रहण िी र्यी प्रकक्रया/िायगवाही तथा अवधारणा कवधाितैः
किष्प्रयोज्य हो र्यी ह और वादीय कवषयवस्तु पर न्यायािय में
कवचारण िरिा कवकधि रूप से विगि िी श्रेणी में आता ह ।
आदेश

अतैः उपरोक्त कववेचिा िे आधार पर वादी द्वारा प्रस्तुत
घोषणात्मि वाद किरस्त किया िाता ह । पत्राविी वाद आवश्यि
िायगवाही अकभिेिार्ार में संकचत हो।"

8.

The
Revisional
Authority/respondent No. 1 also affirmed
the order dated 08.06.2016 passed by the
respondent No. 2 vide order impugned
dated 12.01.2023.

9. In the aforesaid background of the
case, the present petition has been filed
before this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.

10. Assailing the impugned orders
dated 08.06.2016 and 12.01.2023, learned
counsel for the petitioner says that in the
instant case, Section 18-B of the Act of
1968 is not attracted, as such, the suit/case,
in issue, was maintainable and being so, the
same ought to have been decided on merits
and in dismissing the same vide order dated
08.06.2016
on
the
ground
of
maintainability taking note of Section 18-B
of the Act of 1968, the Court/Authority
concerned committed error in law and fact
both and the order of affirmation passed by
the Revisional Authority/respondent No. 1
dated 12.01.2023, without deciding the
issue of maintainability of suit in its true
spirit, is also unsustainable in the eye of
law.

11. He further submitted that the entry
made in revenue record appears to be
without there being any order by the
competent Authority in this regard. In fact,
there is no order of any Authority under the
Act of 1968 in compliance of which, entry
was made in revenue records and before the
Custodian,
only
an
'order'
can
be
challenged, as such also, the orders
impugned are unsustainable in the eye of
law.

12. In addition, he submitted that
earlier the suit, in issue, was dismissed vide
order dated 12.01.1997 and thereafter the
case was remanded back vide order passed
in the appeal dated 26.04.1999. Second
time again, the suit, in issue, was dismissed
484 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
vide order dated 30.05.2003 and thereafter,
the Appellate Authority passed the order
dated 19.07.2004 and remanded the matter
back before the Court concerned for
deciding the same afresh. The order dated
19.07.2004 was modified vide order dated
21.12.2004, wherein, it has been observed
that if any order passed under the Act of
1968 or record of the said case is produced
then the same shall also be considered
while taking decision in terms of the order
of remand. However, neither any order
passed under the Act of 1968 was produced
nor the record of any case under the Act of
1968 was produced and despite this, the
impugned orders have been passed. In these
circumstances of the case, indulgence of
this Court is required in the matter. The
prayer is to allow this petition with cost.

13. Opposing the present petition, Sri
Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State
counsel says that so far as the remand order
is concerned, a perusal of record including
the order dated 19.07.2004 modified vide
order dated 21.12.2004 would show that
the Appellate Authority remanded the
matter back only on the ground that the
trial Court, while dismissing the case,
failed to take note of documentary evidence
placed by the petitioner and in modification
order dated 21.12.2004, the competent
Authority has been directed to consider the
record or order related to the Act of 1968,
if placed before him, but at this time as also
on earlier occasion when the matter was
remanded back, the Act of 1968 was not
amended. The Act of 1968 was amended
vide Act No. 3 of 2017 namely Enemy
Property (Amendment and Validation) Act,
2017. In this case, relevant provisions of
the Act of 1968 are Section 18-B and
Section 22-A. As per Section 22-A, Section
18-B would have a retrospective effect i.e.
it would be applicable from the date from
which the Act of 1968 was promulgated
and came into force. As such, the trial
Court was under obligation, before entering
into the merits of the case, to consider the
issue pertaining to Section 18-B of the Act
of 1968 and upon due consideration, the
trial Court dismissed the suit and thereafter,
the Revisional Authority/respondent No. 1
affirmed the order of trial Court/respondent
No. 2 dated 08.06.2016 vide order
impugned dated 12.01.2023. As such, the
submission of petitioner's counsel based
upon the order(s) of remand has no force.

14. It is further stated that the
language couched under Section 18-B does
not say that the Custodian has to approach
only against an 'order' passed. It says that
otherwise provided in this Act, no civil
court or authority shall have jurisdiction to
entertain any suit or proceedings in respect
of any property, subject matter of this Act,
as amended by the Enemy Property
(Amendment and Validation) Act, 2017, or
any
action
taken
by
the
Central
Government or the Custodian in this
regard. Thus, an 'order' is not required for
approaching the Custodian related to
dispute of the property recorded as 'enemy
property' including the declaration of rights
or expunging the said entry from the
revenue records.

15. At this stage, learned counsel for
the petitioner based upon Section 18-C of
the Act of 1968, which provides appeal to
High Court, says that in this Section,
expression "order" has been indicated, as
such, only an 'order' can be challenged
before Custodian.

16. The aforesaid submission based
upon Section 18-C of the learned counsel
for the petitioner is completely fallacious
because this Section relates to approaching
9 All. Raza Hussain @ Raja Miyan Vs. Addl. Commissioner Lko. & Ors.
485
this Court by means of appeal, if any
person is aggrieved by any order passed by
the Custodian and in this regard, expression
"order" has been indicated in Section 18-C.
At this stage, petitioner's counsel, for the
purposes of interfering in the impugned
orders also referred Section 3 of the Act of
1968, which relates to appointment of
Custodian. This aspect is not liable to be
considered by this Court, as in this petition
based upon Section 3 of the Act of 1968,
no ground has been taken. Moreover, in
view of Section 18-B of the Act of 1968,
the Civil Court or Authority is not
empowered to enter into the merits of the
case on the fact pertaining to appointment
of Custodian and record a finding.

17. Considered the submissions
advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

18. The issue before this Court relates
to jurisdiction of Revenue Court and being
so, this Court is not taking note of factual
aspects of the case, as any observation on
the facts/merits of the case would affect the
rights of the parties before appropriate
forum/court.

19. In order to examine the issue of
maintainability of the suit filed by the
petitioner for declaration of rights over the
property, indicated above, under Section
229-B of the Act of 1950, it would be
appropriate to reproduce Section(s) 18,
18B, 18C and 22A of the Act of 1968.

"[18. Transfer of property vested as
enemy property in certain cases.-The
Central Government may, on receipt of a
representation from a person, aggrieved by
an order vesting a property as enemy
property in the Custodian within a period of
thirty days from the date of receipt of such
order or from the date of its publication in
the Official Gazette, whichever is earlier
and after giving a reasonable opportunity of
being heard, if it is of the opinion that any
enemy property vested in the Custodian
under this Act and remaining with him was
not an enemy property, it may by general or
special order, direct the Custodian that such
property vested as enemy property in the
Custodian may be transferred to the person
from whom such property was acquired
and vested in the Custodian.]

18B. Exclusion of jurisdiction of
civil courts.-Save as otherwise provided
in this Act, no civil court or authority shall
have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or
proceedings in respect of any property,
subject matter of this Act, as amended by
the Enemy Property (Amendment and
Validation) Act, 2017, or any action taken
by
the
Central
Government
or
the
Custodian in this regard.

18C. Appeal to High Court.-Any
person aggrieved by an order of the Central
Government under section 18 of this Act,
may, within a period of sixty days from the
date of communication or receipt of the
order, file an appeal to the High Court on
any question of fact or law arising out of
such orders, and upon such appeal the High
Court may, after hearing the parties, pass
such orders thereon as it thinks proper:

Provided that the High Court may, if it
is satisfied that the appellant was prevented
by sufficient cause from filing an appeal
within the said period, allow it to be filed
within a further period not exceeding sixty
days.

Explanation.-In this section, "High
Court" means the High Court of a State or
Union territory in which the property
referred to in section 18 is situated.]

[22A. Validation.-Notwithstanding
anything contained in any judgment, decree
486 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
or order of any court, tribunal or other
authority,-

(a) the provisions of this Act, as
amended
by
the
Enemy
Property
(Amendment and Validation) Act, 2017,
shall have and shall always be deemed to
have effect for all purposes as if the
provisions of this Act, as amended by the
said Act, had been in force at all material
times;

(b) any enemy property divested from
the Custodian to any person under the
provisions of this Act, as it stood
immediately before the commencement of
the Enemy Property (Amendment and
Validation)
Act,
2017,
shall
stand
transferred to and vest or continue to vest,
free from all encumbrances, in the
Custodian in the same manner as it was
vested in the Custodian before such
divesting of enemy property under the
provisions of this Act, as if the provisions
of this Act, as amended by the aforesaid
Act, were in force at all material times;

(c) no suit or other proceedings shall,
without prejudice to the generality of the
foregoing provisions, be maintained or
continued in any court or tribunal or
authority for the enforcement of any decree
or order or direction given by such court or
tribunal or authority directing divestment of
enemy property from the Custodian vested
in him under section 5 of this Act, as it
stood before the commencement of the
Enemy
Property
(Amendment
and
Validation) Act, 2017, and such enemy
property shall continue to vest in the
Custodian under section 5 of this Act, as
amended by the aforesaid Act, as the said
section, as amended by the aforesaid Act
was in force at all material times;

(d) any transfer of any enemy
property, vested in the Custodian, by virtue
of any order of attachment, seizure or sale
in execution of decree of a civil court or
orders of any tribunal or other authority in
respect of enemy property vested in the
Custodian which is contrary to the
provisions of this Act, as amended by the
Enemy
Property
(Amendment
and
Validation) Act, 2017, shall be deemed to
be null and void and notwithstanding such
transfer, continue to vest in the Custodian
under this Act.]"

20. As per Section 18B, no Civil
Court or Authority shall have jurisdiction
to entertain any suit or proceedings in
respect of any property recorded as 'enemy
property'.

21.

Section
22A,
provides
retrospective
effect
and
accordingly
Section 18B inserted vide Act No. 3 of
2017 would be applicable to the suit, in
issue, instituted by the petitioner.

22. Needless to say that Act of 1968
is an special Act and being so, the same
would have an overriding effect on any
other statute or provision including Section
229-B of the Act of 1950, which provides
remedy to an aggrieved person for
instituting a suit for declaration of rights
over an agricultural land.

23. After considering the remedy of
Appeal before the High Court, as provided
under Section 18C and the scheme of the
Act of 1968, which was enacted to provide
for the continued vesting of enemy
property vested in the Custodian of Enemy
Property for India under the Defence of
India Rules, 1962 and for the matter
connected therewith and came into force
w.e.f. 10.07.1968, as also that it is an
admitted case of the petitioner that the
entry in revenue record (Khatauni) of the
property in dispute of the Fasli Year 1360
(revenue record of 1950th year of the
9 All. M/S Ramkali Balika Inter College, Sultanpur & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
487
Common Era) indicates that the property is
being managed by Custodian (Jere Intijam
Custodian Sahab Bahadur Zila Sitapur) and
also the provisions of unamended/original
Act of 1968, including Section 2(b), 2(c)
and Section 18, this Court is of the opinion
that in the instant case the expression(s) 'an
order vesting a property as enemy property
in the Custodian'; and 'receipt of such order'
or 'from the date of publication in the
Official Gazette' mentioned in Section 18
as also the word 'order' mentioned in other
sections of the Act of 1968 inserved vide
Act No.3 of 2017, would not empower the
Civil Court or Authority to adjudicate the
issue related to the revenue entry in favour
of the Custodian in view of Section 18B, as
this section specifically excludes the
jurisdiction of the Civil Court or Authority.

24. Accordingly, in the view of this
Court, the question related to validity of the
entry in revenue records including the
question as to whether the entry in revenue
record is based upon the order vesting a
property as enemy property in favour of
Custodian has to be decided by the
Authority under the Act of 1968.

25. For the foregoing reasons, this
Court finds that the petition has no force. It
is misconceived and dismissed accordingly.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 487
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 15.09.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ-C No. 7663 of 2023

M/S
Ramkali
Balika
Inter
College,
Sultanpur & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Ashish Verma, Ashish Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., D.K. Singh Chauhan

Civil
Law
-
U.P.
High
Schools
&
Intermediate
Colleges
(Payment
of
Salaries
of
Teachers
and
Other
Employees) Act, 1971 - Sections 4, 5 & 6 -
Power
under
Section
4(1)
restricted
to
inspection and issuance of directions for
ensuring proper payment of salaries and
observance of financial propriety - In absence of
any irregularity relating to salary payment,
Inspector lacked jurisdiction to recommend
appointment of Authorized Controller - Report
forming basis of such appointment found
arbitrary, speculative and outside the scope of
the Act - Exercise of power held to be
colourable and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution.

Impugned orders quashed.

Case Law Discussed:

Whirlpool Corp. Vs Registrar of Trade Marks,
Mumbai & ors.; (1998) 8 SCC 1

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.)

1. Heard learned Counsel for the
petitioners
and
learned
Standing
Counsel.

2. The present petition has been filed
challenging the order dated 13.02.2023,
whereby the Authorized Controller was
appointed in purported exercise of power
under Section 5 of the Uttar Pradesh High
Schools
and
Intermediate
Colleges
(Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other
Employees) Act, 1971 (in short 'the 1971
Act') as well as the order dated 09.08.2023,
whereby the appeal preferred by the
petitioner was rejected.