# Santosh Kumar v. State Of U.P. & Anr - **Citation:** (2016) 4 ILRA 200 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-03-31 - **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/santosh-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-anr-43570 - **Pages:** 3 ## Text 200 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 12. The court after taking notice of the aforesaid provision under the Scheme of Administration considered the other provisions of the scheme whereunder there was no provisions for appointment of Prabandh Sanchalak "in any situation whatsoever". A further finding was recorded that the elections had been discarded on technical grounds. It was held as under:- "The clause does not contemplate appointment of Prabandh Sanchalak in any situation whatsoever. Further in view of the fact that out of 25 members of the general body all 25 members have participated in the elections any technical defect on holding of the said elections cannot be a cause for recording a finding that the elections have not been validly held inasmuch as any such technical defect does not affect the result of the elections in any manner." 13. In case of Committee of Management, Islamia Inter College, Firozabad & another (supra) clause 7 of the Scheme of Administration of that particular institution was under consideration. The dispute relating to rival claim was pending adjudication before the authorities and noticing the said fact an order for single operation of the accounts 8 was passed. The court held that mere pendency of dispute relating to rival claim could not be ground for directing single operation of the accounts. In the said case as well, as would appear from the facts narrated in the judgment, there was no provisions for appointment of an Authorised Controller, in case the dispute relating to management is pending. 14. Since, this Court has held above that under clause 21 of the Scheme of Administration, the second respondent would be competent to appoint an Authorised Controller and therefore incorrect mention of a legal provisions would not invalidate the impugned order. 15. The term of the petitioner Committee having coming to an end in the year 2012 and the elections set up by the petitioners in that year having been discarded, this Court does not find any right or equity which may entitle the petitioner Committee to continue to manage the affairs of the institution. This Court therefore refuses to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioners. 16. The petition lacks merits and is dismissed. -------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.03.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J. Writ C No.- 13282 Of 2016 Santosh Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents 4 All. Santosh Kumar Vs State Of U.P. & Anr. 201 Counsel for Petitioner: Anil Kumar Counsel for Respondents: C.S.C. Held : Order XXI Rule 5 CPC mandates that where a decree is to be executed by another court, the court which passed the decree is obliged to transmit the decree directly to the executing court. The decree holder cannot be compelled to take back the execution papers for presentation before another court. Any order directing return of documents to the decree holder for such purpose is contrary to the statutory scheme. Case Law Cited : None. (Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 2. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 12.12.2015 passed by Additional District Judge exercising powers of the Motor Accident Tribunal in Misc. Case No. 8/74 of 2015, Santosh Kumar vs. Ifco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh). 3. The record of the petition reveals that the Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 82 of 2009 filed by the petitioner was allowed and an award of Rs. 45,000/- with 7% interest w.e.f. 15.07.2009 till its payment was passed against Ifco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh). 4. The petitioner has applied for the execution of the said award, but the Tribunal by the impugned order has held that the award has to be executed by the courts at Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) where the judgment debtor is based. The tribunal, accordingly permitted the petitioner to take back the papers and to apply for execution before the appropriate court within a period of two months. 5. The application for execution of award or decree according to Order 21 Rule 10 CPC has to be moved before the court which has passed the decree or to the court to which it has been sent for execution. 6. Rule 5 of Order 21 CPC provides that where a decree is to be sent for execution to another court, the court which passed such decree shall send it directly to such court whether it is situate within the same State or outside meaning thereby that the court passing the decree and to whom 202 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES application for execution is moved is not supposed to return the documents for presentation before another court for the execution of the decree rather the said court is obliged to sent them directly to such other court for execution. The decree shall then be executed by the court to which it is sent unless it is transferred to some subordinate court of competent jurisdiction as if it was decree passed by it. 7. A reading of the above provisions for the execution of the decree it is apparent that it is the duty of the court which has passed the decree and before whom the application for execution is moved to directly send the same for execution if it feels that the decree has to be executed by some other court. The court is not supposed to return the documents to the decree holder for presenting it to another court or the competent court. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 12.12.2015 in so far it directs for return of the documents to the petitioner for presentation before the other court is not inconsonance with the Rule 5 of Order 21 CPC. 9. Accordingly, the aforesaid order to the above extent is modified and the Tribunal is directed to send the documents directly to the court at Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) for the execution of the award/ the decree in question instead of returning the same to the petitioner. 10. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. -------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.03.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J. Writ C No.- 13821 Of 2016 Masood Ahmad ...Petitioner Versus State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents Counsel for Petitioner: Sita Ram Vishwakarma Counsel for Respondents: C.S.C. HELD:- All applications for grant of firearm licences must be processed expeditiously. Ordinarily, such applications should be decided within six months from the date of receipt.