# Satya Prakash Srivastava v. The Director General (Fire Services), U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2002) 3 ILRA 707
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-09-17
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 1000 of 2002
- **Bench:** S.K. Sen, C.J. R.K. Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satya-prakash-srivastava-v-the-director-general-fire-services-u-p-and-others-39985
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Civil Procedure Code- Order VIII Rule 11
(d)- If the suit is not maintainable and is
barred under the statute, the proper
course for the petitioner shall be to make
an application before the civil judge for
rejection of plaint.

Held- (Para 4)

It is clear from the aforesaid provision
that if the suit is barred under any
particular statute, it is open to the
defendant
to
make
application
for
rejection
of
the
plaint.
Since
the
petitioner is defendant in the suit, he
shall
be
at
liberty
to
make
such
application under Order VII Rule II (d),
if he is so advised, before the Civil Judge
concerned and in case such application is
made it shall be disposed by the learned
Civil Judge as early as possible after
hearing
the
plaintiff
and
other
defendants in accordance with law. It is
made clear that we have not adjudicated
the case upon merit and the learned Civil
Judge shall be at liberty to proceed in
accordance with law. The writ petition
which has been treated as an application
under Article 227 of the Constitution
stands
dismissed
subject
to
the
observations made above.

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Satya Prakash Srivastava V. The Director General (Fire Services), and others
707
assigned task of determining the extent
and scope of the powers conferred on
each part of the Government and thus
ensure that no branch transgresses its
Limits."

17. Indeed, the principles of
interpretation of constitution and the
constitutional philosophy enunciated by
the Apex Court of the land through the
above cited rulings do not brook any
dispute. But the point of the matter is that
having
regard
to
the
facts
and
circumstances of the present case that the
F.I.R.
in
question
discloses
the
commission of cognizable offences and
that at this stage no mala fides can be held
to be involved in the lodging of the said
F.I.R., the petitioner is not entitled for any
relief. We do not locate any merit in this
writ petition for the detailed discussion
made in the proceeding paragraphs.

18. We accordingly dismiss this writ
petition.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.9.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.K. SEN, C.J.
THE HON'BLE R.K. AGARWAL, J.

Special Appeal No. 1000 of 2002

Satya Prakash Srivastava
...Petitioner
Versus
The Director General (Fire Services), U.P.
and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri O.P. Singh
Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava
Sri Swarn Kumar Srivastva

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.J. Yadav
S.C.

Constitution of India- Article 226- There
is no Rule which provides that one can
not keep beard. Our country is governed
by Rule of Law and matters are to be
decided according to the provisions of
law in that behalf and not on likes or
dislike of an individual Officer howsoever
high position he may be having. (Held in
para 2)

The
representation
made
by
writ
petitioner should have been decided on
the basis of merit and we accordingly set
aside the rejection order dated 9.7.2002
passed by Director General Fire Services
U.P. The Director General shall decide
the matter afresh after hearing the writ
petitioner and pass appropriate orders
recording reasons.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.K. Sen, C.J.)

1. Sri O.P. Singh learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Anil Kumar
Srivastava Advocate appears for appellant
and Sri S.J. Yadav learned Standing
counsel appears for State Respondents.

2. This Special Appeal is directed
against an order passed by learned single
Judge whereby learned single Judge
dismissed the writ petition. It appears that
the writ petitioner was aggrieved since his
representation against the order of transfer
was rejected only on the ground that the
Director General Fire Services, U.P. took
the view that he was in shabby condition
with long beard and hair which displayed
indiscipline and immaturity. That is not a
ground on which transfer was effected.
There is no Rule which provides that one
can not keep beard. Our country is
governed by Rule of Law and matters are
to be decided according to the provision
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
708 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
of law in that behalf and not on likes or
dislike of an individual officer howsoever
high position he may be having. We are
surprised to find such a finding from an
officer of such a high rank. Just because a
person has joined the police force, there
can not be any compulsion upon him that
he can not keep beard. Be that as it may,
we feel that the representation made by
writ petitioner should have been decided
on the basis of merit and we accordingly
set aside the rejection order dated
9.7.2002 passed by Director General Fire
Services U.P. The Director General shall
decide the matter afresh after hearing the
writ petitioner and pass appropriate orders
recording reasons.

3. The order of rejection dated
9.7.2002 stands quashed. Both the Special
appeal and the writ petition are allowed.
The order passed by the learned single
judge dated 29.8.2002 is set aside.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.9.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.K. SEN, C.J.
THE HON'BLE R.K. AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.37657 of 2002

Brij Mohan Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
District Panchayat Raj Officer and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Murtuza Ali
Sri S.C. Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ran Vijay Singh
S.C.
Civil Procedure Code- Order VIII Rule 11
(d)- If the suit is not maintainable and is
barred under the statute, the proper
course for the petitioner shall be to make
an application before the civil judge for
rejection of plaint.

Held- (Para 4)

It is clear from the aforesaid provision
that if the suit is barred under any
particular statute, it is open to the
defendant
to
make
application
for
rejection
of
the
plaint.
Since
the
petitioner is defendant in the suit, he
shall
be
at
liberty
to
make
such
application under Order VII Rule II (d),
if he is so advised, before the Civil Judge
concerned and in case such application is
made it shall be disposed by the learned
Civil Judge as early as possible after
hearing
the
plaintiff
and
other
defendants in accordance with law. It is
made clear that we have not adjudicated
the case upon merit and the learned Civil
Judge shall be at liberty to proceed in
accordance with law. The writ petition
which has been treated as an application
under Article 227 of the Constitution
stands
dismissed
subject
to
the
observations made above.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.K. Sen, C.J.)

Present: Sri Murtuza Ali and Sri S.C.
Verma learned counsels for the petitioner
and Shri Ran Vijay Singh learned
standing counsel for the respondents.

1. This petitioner first moved before
the learned Single Judge as an application
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. The learned Single Judge felt that
the application would lie under Article
227
of
the
Constitution
of
India.
Accordingly, the matter came up before
us today. However, we find that the
prayers made in the writ petition cannot
apply to an application under Article 227