# Rishipal and others v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2005) 3 ILRA 1008
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-07-18
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.52247 of 2005
- **Bench:** Ajoy Nath Ray, C.J. Ashok Bhushan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rishipal-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40563
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

U.P. Industrial Area Development Act
1976-Section.12
A-read
with
Constitution of India.Act-243-Q-P/L-by
Notification Date 11.07.1989-about eight
villages
acquired
for
Industrial
Development
Area-Public
Interest
Petition-claming not to hold village
Panchayat election-neither specification
regarding township made for notification
for exclusion made as required under Act
243-Q-No Question of exclusion from
Panchayat arise-merely Notification u/s
2-(a)-ipso facts does not exclude from
Panchayat-Petition dismissed.

Held: Para 7, 8

From Section 12-A it further reveals that
if the said area is included in Panchayat
area, such area with effect from the date
of
notification
made
under
proviso
(proviso to article 243-Q) stand excluded
from such panchayat. Thus specification
to be an industrial township as well as a
notification under proviso to Article 243
are condition precedents for excluding
from any panchayat area. There is
nothing on the record to come to
conclusion that the area in question has
been specified as an industrial township.
Further no notification, as stated by
Chief Standing Counsel, has been issued
under proviso to Article 343 Q by the
State Government, hence, question of
exclusion of the area from panchayat
area does not arise.

Merely because the Villages in question
are covered under 2-(d) does not ipso
facto exclude them from Panchayat area.
As noted above neither it has been
specified as Industrial Township nor a
notification under Article 243-Q has been
issued. The relief claimed by the writ
petitioner in the writ petition cannot be
granted.

## Text

1008 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
outcome but for the same verdict which
has been recorded in the other case.

3. In the circumstances, I allow this
application and grant the benefit of
principle of stare decisis and criminal
proceedings initiated against the applicant
on the basis of first information report
registered at case Crime No. 21 of 2002,
under Sections 498-A, 323 I.P.C. read
with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act,
Police
Station
Sikandrabad,
District
Bulandshahar is quashed. The application
is allowed.
Application allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.07.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AJOY NATH RAY, C.J.
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.52247 of 2005

Rishipal and others
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Dr. H.N. Tripathi
Sri. Rajesh Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri V.P. Mathur
Sri C.B. Yadav, C.S.C.
Sri P.N. Rai,
C.S.C.

U.P. Industrial Area Development Act
1976-Section.12
A-read
with
Constitution of India.Act-243-Q-P/L-by
Notification Date 11.07.1989-about eight
villages
acquired
for
Industrial
Development
Area-Public
Interest
Petition-claming not to hold village
Panchayat election-neither specification
regarding township made for notification
for exclusion made as required under Act
243-Q-No Question of exclusion from
Panchayat arise-merely Notification u/s
2-(a)-ipso facts does not exclude from
Panchayat-Petition dismissed.

Held: Para 7, 8

From Section 12-A it further reveals that
if the said area is included in Panchayat
area, such area with effect from the date
of
notification
made
under
proviso
(proviso to article 243-Q) stand excluded
from such panchayat. Thus specification
to be an industrial township as well as a
notification under proviso to Article 243
are condition precedents for excluding
from any panchayat area. There is
nothing on the record to come to
conclusion that the area in question has
been specified as an industrial township.
Further no notification, as stated by
Chief Standing Counsel, has been issued
under proviso to Article 343 Q by the
State Government, hence, question of
exclusion of the area from panchayat
area does not arise.

Merely because the Villages in question
are covered under 2-(d) does not ipso
facto exclude them from Panchayat area.
As noted above neither it has been
specified as Industrial Township nor a
notification under Article 243-Q has been
issued. The relief claimed by the writ
petitioner in the writ petition cannot be
granted.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajoy Nath Ray, C.J.)

1. These are the two writ petitions
filed as public interest litigations on same
facts and cause of action. Both writ
petitions being identical in nature are
decided by this common order.

2. It is sufficient to mention the facts
of writ petition No.52247 of 2005 for
deciding both the writ petitions. Writ
petition No.52247 of 2005 has been filed
3 All] Rishipal and others V. State of U.P. and others
1009
by five petitioners claming themselves to
be residents of Block Bisarakh Tehsil
Dadri. The case of the petitioners in the
writ petition is that 81 villages are
covered
by
U.P.
Industrial
Area
Development
Act
1976(hereinafter
referred to as Act) and by virtue of
Section 12-A of U.P. Industrial Area
Development Act 1976, no election for
constituting
Panchayats
in
the
said
Villages can take place. A mandamus has
been prayed directing the respondents not
to hold proposed election of Panchayat in
respect of 81 villages which was acquired
by the authority. In the supplementary
affidavit filled in Writ Petition No.52247
of 2005 petitioners, have brought on the
record copy of the notification dated
11.07.1989 issued in exercise of power
under section 2(d) of U.P. Industrial Area
Development Act, 1976 read with section
21 of U.P. General Clauses Act declaring
certain
Villages
in
the
Industrial
Development area as contemplated under
section 2 (d) of the Act.

3. The counsel for the petitioners
contended that notification having been
issued under section 2 (d) of the Act, the
area
in
question
is
an
industrial
development area and is maintained by
the authority constituted that all facilities
are being provided by the authority and
there is no occasion to constitute the
panchayat. Reliance has been placed on
Section 12-A of the Act.

4. Shri C.B. Yadav, learned Chief
Standing Counsel, appearing for the State,
contended that the area, which is included
in Industrial Area, has not yet been
declared as an Industrial township and no
notification has been issued by the State
in exercise of proviso to Article 343 Q of
the Constitution of India. He contended
that in the year 2000 also the Panchayat
elections were held and panchayats were
constituted and the State is issuing
necessary funds to the Panchayat for all
development.

5. Before we proceed to examine the
respective contentions of the parties, it is
appropriate to set out section 2(d) and 12A of the Act, which are as follows:
"2(d) "industrial development area"
means an area declared as such by the
State Government by notification;"
"12-A
Notwithstanding
anything
contained to the contrary in any Utter
Pradesh
Act
where
an
Industrial
Development Area or any part there of is
specified to be an industrial town ship
under the proviso to clause (I) of Article
243-Q of the constitution such industrial
development area or part thereof, if
included in a Panchayat area, shall, with
effect from the date of notification made
under the said proviso, stand excluded
from such panchayat area and no
Panchayat shall be constituted for such
industrial development area or part
thereof under the United Provinces
Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 or the Utter
Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats and Zila
Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961, as the case
may be, and any Panchayat constitution
for such industrial development area
thereof
before
the
date
of
such
information shall cease to exist."

6. From a plain reading of Section
12-A of the Act it is clear that after
declaration of any industrial development
area under Section 2 (d) of the Act two
things are required for excluding them
from existing Panchayat area. First is,
specification to be an industrial township
and secondly a notification under Proviso
1010 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
to Article 243-Q of the Constitution of
India.

7. From Section 12-A it further
reveals that if the said area is included in
Panchayat area, such area with effect
from the date of notification made under
proviso (proviso to article 243-Q) stand
excluded from such panchayat. Thus
specification to be an industrial township
as well as a notification under proviso to
Article 243 are condition precedents for
excluding from any panchayat area. There
is nothing on the record to come to
conclusion that the area in question has
been specified as an industrial township.
Further no notification, as stated by Chief
Standing Counsel, has been issued under
proviso to Article 343 Q by the State
Government, hence, question of exclusion
of the area from panchayat area does not
arise.

8. Merely because the Villages in
question are covered under 2-(d) does not
ipso facto exclude them from Panchayat
area. As noted above neither it has been
specified as Industrial Township nor a
notification under Article 243-Q has been
issued. The relief claimed by the writ
petitioner in the writ petition cannot be
granted.

In view of above, both the writ
petitions are dismissed. Petition
dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDIDTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 4.8.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9227 of 2001

Sacchidanand Tiwari and others

...Petitioners
Versus
Assistant Security Commissioner and
others

...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Satish Dwivedi
Sri Suresh Chandra Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Govind Saran

Railways Protection force rules 1987Rule-120-unauthorise
occupationpetition
during
posting
period
at
Allahabad-allowed
railway
quarter
no.37-D type-I-even after transfer from
Allahabad-not vacated-charge of penal
rent w.e.f. 13.7.93 to 24.4.01-arreaas of
rent Rs.1,20,595-recovry of Rs.1000/-
per months from the salary of petitionerheld-proper-once
the
petitioner
transferred-allotment comes to an end-if
not
vacated
nor
applied
to
the
competent authority-even before writ
Court no challenge made questing the
amount of realization of panel rentprotection
under
public
premises
(Eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act
1947 not available to the petitionernotice in writing not required-

Held: Para-8 and 9

In the present case the petitioner has
not enclosed the allotment letter by
which the residential accommodation
was allotted. It is however admitted in
the pleadings that it was allotted to him
as a member of the force by virtue of his
posting at Allahabad. Rule 120.2 of the