# Shaukat Ali Siddiqi v. Committee of Management, Chasmai Rahmat Oriental College & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 969
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-10
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 35723 of 2007
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shaukat-ali-siddiqi-v-committee-of-management-chasmai-rahmat-oriental-college-54834
- **Pages:** 9

## Text

10 All. Shaukat Ali Siddiqi Vs. Committee of Management, Chasmai Rahmat Oriental College
 & Ors.
969
nature of Mandamus is issued
commanding the opposed party No.3 i.e.
Assistant Controller Vidhik Maap Vigyan
Faizabad
Range,
Faizabad
to
revisit
petitioner's application for compassionate
appointment in case he is able to
substantiate that he was dependent upon the
deceased brother. Such a decision shall be
taken
by
the
concerned
authority
expeditiously within a period of six weeks
from the date a certified copy of this order
is served upon the concerned authority.
17.
Resultantly,
the
petition
succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear
their own costs.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 969
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ - A No. 35723 of 2007

Shaukat Ali Siddiqi ...Petitioner
Versus
Committee
of
Management,
Chasmai
Rahmat Oriental College & Ors.
...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Indra Raj Singh, Irfan Raza Khan, Mahesh
Prasad, Mohd Naseer Ahmed, Prakash
Padia ( Ele.), Satish Chandra Sinha

Counsel for the Respondents:
 Anant Vijay, C.S.C., Pranav Mishra

Issue for Consideration
1. Application of Rule of 1987 to Arabic-Persian
Madrasa.
2.
Effect
of
non-compliance
of
Salutary
procedures regarding fixing date, time and place
of holding enquiry before passing dismissal
order.
3. Effect of attaining the age of superannuation
on the survival of cause of action and on the
right of the petitioner dismissed from service
illegally.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Dismissal - Minority
institution - Principle of natural justice -
Applicability - Right to defend charges,
protection
thereof
-
Petitioner
was
appointed
as
Assistant
Teacher
in
Tehtania Section (Primary Section) of
Arabic-Persian
Madrasa
-
Institution
maintained
out
of
State
funds
-
Delinquent failed to file reply to the
charges
-
No
opportunity
of
cross
examination
was
given
-
Salutary
procedure regarding fixing date, time and
place of holding enquiry was not complied
with - Effect - Application of Rule of 1987
to Arabic-Persian Madrasa also felt into
consideration :

Held : It is well settled that regulation by the
State is permissible by the exercise of its
executive authority regarding any kind of
activity, which a law of the competent
legislature does not regulate. Therefore, the
Rules of 1987, which have been framed in the
exercise of the executive power of the State, as
a government order, would certainly regulate
procedure for holding inquiries against teachers
of Arabic-Persian Madrasa to the extent they
provide for it. [Para 15]

Further held : The Institution contemplated
dismissing the petitioner from service, which is
certainly a major penalty - a terminal one.
Salutary procedure requires that in such a case,
date, time and place for holding the inquiry be
intimated to the delinquent, and witnesses
heard in support of the charges to be produced
by the establishment - The mere fact that the
petitioner has not responded or failed to answer
the charge-sheet, does not deprive him in
accordance with the salutary principles of
holding departmental inquiries in major penalty
matters of opportunity to appear at the inquiry,
where witnesses for the establishment are
heard and cross-examine them - On account of
non-adherence
to
salutary
procedure,
as
indicated above, the proceedings against the
970 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner beyond the stage, where he was set
down ex parte in the inquiry, are vitiated. [Para
16 and 20]
(B) Service law - Dismissal - Attainment
of the age of superannuation during the
pendency of case - It's effect on survival
of cause of action :

Held : The superannuation of an employee only
alters his entitlement to the kind of relief, that
may be granted. It does not destroy his cause
of action. The relief, after superannuation, if
that be true for a fact, has to be molded in the
event, ultimately the petitioner is not found
guilty or not found worthy of a dismissal
penalty, as regards his service. [Para 19] (E-1)

Case Law Cited
Iftekhar Ahmad v. State of U.P. and others,
2013 (5) ADJ 168 - referred to.

List of Acts
Constitution of India - Article 30; U.P.
Intermediate
Education
Act,
1921;
Uttar
Pradesh Non-Government Arabic and Persian
Madrasa Recognition and Service Rules, 1987 -
Rule 34.

List of Keywords
Resolution; Dismissal; Approval; Arabic-Persian
Madrasa; Minority institution; Charges; Ex parte;
Inquiry report; Principle of natural justice;
Freedom of a minority institution; Executive
authority; Right to cross examine; Departmental
enquiry; Age of superannuation; Infructuous;
Non-adherence
of
salutary
procedure;
Reinstatement.

Case Arising From
Impugned resolution of the Committee of
Management
dated
06.05.2007
dismissing
petitioner from service, and approval order of
the Registrar/Inspector, Arabic-Persian Madrasa
dated 14.07.2007 approving the resolution of
the Committee of Management.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner : Vijay Kumar Singh,
Senior Advocate; Mahesh Prasad; Indra Raj
Singh; Irfan Raz Khan; Mohd Naseer Ahmed;
Prakash Padia (Ele.), Satish Chndra Sinha
Advs. For the Respondent : Chaudhari N. A.
Khan, Senior Advocate; Irfan Raza Khan; Mr.
Pranav Mishra; Anant Vijay; Girijesh Kumar
Tripathi, A.C.S.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This writ petition is directed against
the order dated 07.05.2007, being a
communication
from
the
Manager,
Chashmai
Rahmat
Oriental
College,
Ghazipur, informing the petitioner of the
resolution passed by the Committee of
Management dated 06.05.2007 of the
College last mentioned, dismissing him
from service. Also under challenge is an
order of the Registrar/ Inspector, ArabicPersian
Madrasa
dated
14.07.2007,
approving the resolution of the Committee
of Management to dismiss the petitioner, an
Assistant Teacher with the College last
mentioned, from service under Rule 34 of
the Uttar Pradesh Non-Government Arabic
and Persian Madrasa Recognition and
Service Rules, 1987 (for short, 'the Rules of
1987').
The
petitioner,
through
an
amendment application that was allowed
vide order dated 09.08.2007, has also
challenged the resolution of the Committee
of Management dated 06.05.2007, raising
grounds for the purpose, but without
incorporating a formal prayer to that effect.

2. In the circumstances, we propose
to examine the validity of the impugned
resolution
dated
06.05.2007,
notwithstanding the flaw in the form of
relief.

3. It is undisputed that the
Chashmai
Rahmat
Oriental
College,
Ghazipur (for short, 'the Institution') is a
Madrasa, imparting instructions to scholars
in Arabic and Persian languages, which is
duly recognized by the State Government.
It is in receipt of a maintenance grant for
10 All. Shaukat Ali Siddiqi Vs. Committee of Management, Chasmai Rahmat Oriental College
 & Ors.
971
payment of salaries to its teachers and other
employees drawn on the Exchequer.

4. The petitioner was appointed
with the Institution on 20.08.1988 as an
Assistant Teacher in the Tehtania Section
(Primary Section) and has been working
regularly ever-since. The petitioner says
that his work and conduct has always been
satisfactory.

5. The petitioner says that without
basis, he was served with a charge-sheet by
the
Manager
and
Secretary
of
the
Institution dated 08.04.2006. The chargesheet carries nine charges. It appears that
the petitioner resisted answering the
charge-sheet, raising objections as to
jurisdiction of the Manager to issue the
same, but those demurrers being rejected
by the Management of the Institution, a
notice dated 09.12.2006 was issued by the
Inquiry Officer to the petitioner, saying that
he had been given sufficient time to submit
his reply, which he has failed to do, and, in
case he does not submit his reply on or
before 13.12.2006, the Inquiry Officer
would proceed ex parte.

6. The petitioner then submitted a
response dated 13.12.2006, saying that he
had not been given a complete copy of the
charge-sheet and various other proceedings
connected therewith. It was also said in the
reply aforesaid that the petitioner was
unwell and the doctor had advised him
complete
rest.
He,
therefore,
sought
extension of time to file his reply. The said
reply was supported with a medical
certificate from Dr. Kedar Nath, B.M.S.
dated 13.12.2006. The Inquiry Officer did
not accede to the petitioner's request and
proceeded ex parte submitting a report
dated 21.04.2007 to the Management of the
Institution. A copy of the inquiry report
was furnished to the petitioner, to which he
submitted a reply dated 05.05.2007.

7. The case of the petitioner is that,
without
considering
his
reply,
the
Committee
of
Management,
by
the
resolution impugned dated 06.05.2007,
ordered his dismissal from service, which
was communicated by the Manager vide
the order impugned dated 07.05.2007.
Against the order passed by the Manager
and the resolution of the Committee of
Management of the Institution, dismissing
the petitioner from service, the petitioner
says, he moved an appeal dated 22.05.2007
to the District Minority Welfare Officer,
Ghazipur. There is no reference to any
provision of the law providing for an
appeal, either from the Management's
resolution,
resolving
to
dismiss
the
petitioner from service, or the Manager's
communication thereof. The petitioner's
appeal to the District Minority Welfare
Officer as aforesaid, can only be regarded
as a representation before an officer of the
State in the appropriate Department,
seeking to set aside the order of his
dismissal from service.

8. The petitioner's representation as
aforesaid was forwarded by the District
Minority Welfare Officer, Ghazipur to the
Registrar/
Inspector,
Arabic-Persian
Madrasa.
The
Registrar/
Inspector
addressed a letter to the petitioner dated
21.06.2007, directing him to appear in the
Registrar's office on 29.06.2007 at 11.00
a.m. in order that the Registrar could give
suggestions under Rule 34 of the Rules of
1987 to the Management. The petitioner
says that he appeared in the office of the
Registrar/
Inspector,
Arabic-Persian
Madrasa on 29.06.2007 and submitted a
detailed
brief.
Subsequently,
a
supplementary brief was also submitted by
972 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the
petitioner
to
the
Registrar
on
10.07.2007.
The
Registrar/
Inspector,
Arabic-Persian
Madrasa,
rejected
the
petitioner's claim vide his order dated
14.07.2007.

9. In substance, aggrieved by the
resolution
of
the
Committee
of
Management of the Institution dated
06.05.2007 and formally by the order of the
Manager dated 07.05.2007 as well as that
of the Registrar/ Inspector, Arabic-Persian
Madrasa dated 14.07.2007, the petitioner
has instituted the present writ petition.

10. A notice of motion was issued
in this case on 09.08.2007, after granting an
amendment. A counter affidavit on behalf
of respondent Nos.1 and 2, that is to say,
the Management of the Institution, was
filed on 19.07.2012, to which the petitioner
filed a rejoinder on 25.02.2025. A
supplementary counter affidavit was filed
on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 on
07.11.2024. A counter affidavit on behalf
of respondent No.3, another on behalf of
respondent No.4, and still another on behalf
of
respondent
No.5,
were
filed
on
05.11.2024, to which the petitioner filed
separate
rejoinders.
Parties
having
exchanged affidavits, this writ petition was
admitted to hearing on 17.01.2025.

11. Heard Mr. Vijay Kumar Singh,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.
Mahesh Prasad, learned Counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Chaudhari
N.A. Khan, learned Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Irfan Raza Khan, learned
Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. Pranav Mishra, Advocate
on behalf of respondent No. 3 and Mr.
Girijesh
Kumar
Tripathi,
learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel on
behalf of respondent Nos. 4 & 5.
12. The only question worth
consideration in this case is if the
disciplinary proceedings taken against the
petitioner were in conformity with the
principles of natural justice, in that that no
date, time and place for holding the inquiry
were intimated to the petitioner. The fact
that no date, time and place were intimated
to the petitioner does not appear to be in
dispute. It is asserted in paragraph No.25 of
the writ petition that no notice or
opportunity whatsoever has been given to
the petitioner by the Inquiry Officer to
produce his witnesses nor any date or time
was fixed with intimation to the petitioner
to join the inquiry. Paragraph No.25 of the
writ petition has not been denied in the
counter affidavit dated 08.05.2012 with
regard to its material allegations. All that is
said is that the petitioner, after receiving
the charge-sheet, did not file his reply, or
cooperate with the inquiry. He, therefore,
avoided the inquiry, a fact proved by
documents on record. There is no denial of
the fact that the date, time and place
scheduled for holding the inquiry were
never intimated to the petitioner.

13. We are not concerned about
what the charges against the petitioner are,
and if they have been proved. The issue is
about procedural fairness and adherence to
the principles of natural justice regarding
one of the facets of salutary procedure
governing the holding of a disciplinary
inquiry in a matter, where a major penalty
may be imposed. It is true that the
respondents are a minority institution and
at the relevant time, were governed by a
non-statutory government order in the form
of the Rules of 1987. It is nevertheless not
in dispute that the Institution is in receipt of
grant-in-aid from the Exchequer. In cases,
such
as
these,
notwithstanding
the
protection afforded by Article 30 of the
10 All. Shaukat Ali Siddiqi Vs. Committee of Management, Chasmai Rahmat Oriental College
 & Ors.
973
Constitution to a minority institutions,
whether religious or linguistic, to establish
and administer institutions of its choice, the
right to administer does not include the
right to maladminister.

14. In the context of the provisions
of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and
the Regulations framed thereunder, the
freedom of a minority institution to
terminate the services of its Principal,
without adhering to the principles of
natural justice, fell for consideration before
this Court in Iftekhar Ahmad v. State of
U.P. and others, 2013 (5) ADJ 168. It was
held in Iftekhar Ahmad (supra):

 "28. In a recent judgment in
Sindhi
Education
Society
v.
Chief
Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi,
(2010) 8 SCC 49, the Supreme Court
observed as under :

 "Last of the judgments, which has
some bearing on the subject in question, is
on the principle reiterated by a Bench of
this Court in Malankara Syrian Catholic
College,where the Court again dealt with
the aided minority educational institutions
and terms and conditions of services of
employees. The Court in para 12 of the
judgment
framed
the
following
two
questions: (SCC p. 393)

 "12. The rival contentions give
rise to the following questions:

 (i) To what extent, the State can
regulate the right of the minorities to
administer their educational institutions,
when such institutions receive aid from the
State?

 (ii) Whether the right to choose a
Principal is part of the right of minorities
under Article 30(1) to establish and
administer educational institutions of their
choice. If so, would Section 57(3) of the
Act
violate
Article
30(1)
of
the
Constitution of India?"

 The answer to Question (i) was
provided in para 21 while Question (ii) was
answered in paras 27 and 28 of the
judgment which read as under: (SCC pp.
400
and
404)

 21. We may also recapitulate the
extent
of
regulation
by
the
State,
permissible in respect of employees of
minority educational institutions receiving
aid from the State, as clarified and
crystallised in T.M.A. Pai. The State can
prescribe:

 (i) the minimum qualifications,
experience and other criteria bearing on
merit, for making appointments,

 (ii) the service conditions of
employees without interfering with the
overall administrative control by the
management over the staff,

 (iii) a mechanism for redressal of
the grievances of the employees,

 (iv) the conditions for the proper
utilisation of the aid by the educational
institutions, without abridging or diluting
the right to establish and administer
educational institutions.

 In other words, all laws made by
the State to regulate the administration of
educational institutions and grant of aid
will
apply
to
minority
educational
institutions also. But if any such regulations
interfere with the overall administrative
974 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
control by the management over the staff,
or abridges/dilutes, in any other manner,
the right to establish and administer
educational institutions, such regulations,
to that extent, will be inapplicable to
minority institutions.

 29. Principal of law emanates
from the above judgments are that Articles
29 and 30 of the Constitution is under the
head of Cultural and Educational Rights.
Article 29 is in two parts 29 (1) provides
that any section of citizen have a
fundamental right to conserve its language,
script or culture. Any section society can
get its protection irrespective of their
religion.

 30. In Punjab Hindus got its
protection because Gurumukhi is there
language of majority.

 31. Article 29 (2) provides that no
citizen shall be denied admission into any
education institution maintained by the
State or receiving aid out of State Fund on
the ground only of relegion, race, caste,
language or any of them.

 32. But Article 30 (1) of the
Constitution provides that all religious or
lignuistic minorities have the right to
establish
and
administer
educational
institution of their choice. A combined
reading of Articles 29 and 30 of the
Constitution makes it clear that there are
four distinct rights:

 (1) any section of citizen has a
fundamental right to conserve its language
or culture;

 (2) all the religious and linguistic
minorities have fundamental right to
establish
and
administer
education
institution of their choice in terms of
Article 30 (1) of the Constitution;

 (3)
the
State
shall
not
discriminate any education institution while
sanctioning financial grant to it on the basis
of religion, race or caste and

 (4) the citizen of any religion will
not be denied admission into any State
maintained or aided education institution
on the ground of religion, caste race or
language.

 33. Thus a minority has two
choices they can establish an educational
institution in terms of Article 29 (1) of the
Constitution to conserve its language and
culture. The second option is to come out
from the ambit of Article 29 (1) of the
Constitution and opt for a secular education
under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution.

 34. A common thread running
through all these judgments are that under
the umbrella of Article 30 (1) the minority
Institutions do not have absolute right .The
state may regulate service condition of
teaching staff.

 35. In absence of job security,
talented teachers, even of their own religion
will not like to serve in an institution where
Damascus sword is always hanging over
their head.

 36. A minority institution which
receives aid out of the State Fund owes a
greater responsibility to the society as the
children of the minority are entitled to get
same standard of education like in the State
run or other private institution, otherwise
the students belonging to minority would
not be able to compete with other students
who are fortunate enough to get quality
10 All. Shaukat Ali Siddiqi Vs. Committee of Management, Chasmai Rahmat Oriental College
 & Ors.
975
education in the other institutions. If the
law gives free hand to the management of a
minority institution to appoint and remove
the teachers in an autocratic way then it
will tend to adopt hire and fire policy under
the protection of Article 30 (1) of the
Constitution. In such situation the ultimate
sufferer would be the students of their own
religion. If a sizeable section of society is
left behind and they are unable to join the
mainstream of the country. The task of the
nation building which was envisaged by the
founding fathers of the Constitution will
remain a mirage."

15. It is true that unlike Iftekhar
Ahmad, there are no statutory regulations
in the field requiring adherence to the
principles of natural justice by the
Institution in this case, that is to say, at the
relevant time, when the cause of action
arose, but regulation by the State to
maintain basic standards of fairness, in the
employment and removal of teachers, was
introduced by the Rules of 1987. At the
relevant time, there was no statutory
regulation for the Arabic-Persian Madrasa,
which came later on in the year 2016 in the
form
of
the
Uttar
Pradesh
NonGovernmental Arabic and Persian Madarsa
Recognition, Administration and Services
Regulations,
2016
(for
short,
'the
Regulations of 2016'). It is well settled that
regulation by the State is permissible by the
exercise of its executive authority regarding
any kind of activity, which a law of the
competent legislature does not regulate.
Therefore, the Rules of 1987, which have
been framed in the exercise of the
executive power of the State, as a
government order, would certainly regulate
procedure for holding inquiries against
teachers of Arabic-Persian Madrasa to the
extent they provide for it. Rule 33 of the
Rules of 1987 provides:
 "33- दकसी कमगच री के दवरुद्ध अनुश सन त्मक
क यगव ही करने क दनणगय दलय ज त है तो कमगच री को स्पष्ट
आरोप-पत्र दिय ज येग । िोषी व्यदि को आरोप-पत्र प ने के तीन
सप्त ह के भीतर अपन पक्ष प्रस्तुत करने क पूर मौक दिय
ज येग ।'

(emphasis by Court)

16. What is given to the chargesheeted employee or teacher of an ArabicPersian Madrasa at the relevant time is the
right to defend himself on the charges after
he receives a charge-sheet. Here, no doubt,
the petitioner evaded answering the chargesheet, but that was not the end of the
matter.
The
Institution
contemplated
dismissing the petitioner from service,
which is certainly a major penalty a
terminal one. Salutary procedure requires
that in such a case, date, time and place for
holding the inquiry be intimated to the
delinquent, and witnesses heard in support
of the charges to be produced by the
establishment. There is no issue in this case
about the establishment or the Institution
not producing witnesses. It is about nonintimation to the petitioner of the date, time
and place for holding the inquiry. The mere
fact that the petitioner has not responded or
failed to answer the charge-sheet, does not
deprive him in accordance with the salutary
principles of holding departmental inquiries
in major penalty matters of opportunity to
appear at the inquiry, where witnesses for
the establishment are heard and crossexamine them.

17. It is true that if the delinquent
does not file a reply to the charge-sheet, he
may be precluded from producing his own
evidence, if set down ex parte on that
ground. But, still, he would have, as
already remarked, the right to crossexamine the establishment witnesses, who
976 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
testify
in
support
of
the
charges.
Undisputedly, the respondents have not
intimated the petitioner of the date, time
and place for holding the inquiry. The
Inquiry Officer gave a last opportunity to
the petitioner to file his reply to the chargesheet vide letter dated 09.12.2006, in
response to which the petitioner did not file
a reply before the date indicated, i.e.
13.12.2006, and an inquiry report dated
21.04.2007 was submitted. In between, the
date fixed for holding the ex parte inquiry
was apparently not intimated to the
petitioner. This is where the petitioner was
denied his right of cross-examining the
establishment witnesses, assuming that
such witnesses were examined. If they were
not, that would be an added violation of the
salutary procedure in a major penalty
matter.

18. The Institution is maintained
out of State funds and the Rules of 1987, in
particular Rule 33, in the absence of a
statute or statutory rules, would bind the
Institution to act in accordance with the
said Rules. Also, the respondents would be
bound by the salutary procedure for
holding departmental inquiry in a major
penalty matter, where their employee, like
the petitioner, was receiving salary, borne
of State grant.

19. This Court is informed by the
learned
Counsel
appearing
for
the
Institution that the petitioner has already
attained the age of superannuation. The
learned
Counsel
appearing
for
the
Institution says that this writ petition be,
therefore, dismissed as infructuous. We do
not agree. The superannuation of an
employee only alters his entitlement to the
kind of relief, that may be granted. It does
not destroy his cause of action. The relief,
after superannuation, if that be true for a
fact, has to be molded in the event,
ultimately the petitioner is not found guilty
or not found worthy of a dismissal penalty,
as regards his service.

20. We are of opinion that on
account of non-adherence to salutary
procedure,
as
indicated
above,
the
proceedings against the petitioner beyond
the stage, where he was set down ex parte
in the inquiry, are vitiated. The impugned
orders would, therefore, have to be quashed
with liberty to the respondents to proceed
against the petitioner, if they so desire,
setting him down ex parte, or may be
granting him an opportunity to file a reply
to the charge-sheet as a onetime measure,
but certainly intimating him of the date,
time and place of holding the inquiry. At
this distance of time, there can be no order
of reinstatement passed by the Court, even
if the petitioner has not yet attained the age
of superannuation. The consequences of
quashing the impugned orders of dismissal
from service and its approval by the
Registrar/
Inspector,
Arabic-Persian
Madrasa, would depend upon the ultimate
event in the inquiry and the fresh orders
that
are
made
by
the
Disciplinary
Authority.
21. This writ petition, accordingly,
succeeds and is allowed in part. The
resolution
of
the
Committee
of
Management
dated
06.05.2007,
the
impugned order passed by the Manager of
the Institution dated 07.05.2007 and the
order of the Registrar/ Inspector, ArabicPersian Madrasa, are hereby quashed. The
respondent Institution shall be at liberty to
proceed against the petitioner afresh,
bearing in mind the guidance in this
judgment.

22. There shall be no order as to
costs.
10 All. Mahesh Chandra Tiwari & Ors. Vs. State of U.P..& Ors.
977
23.
Let
this
judgment
be
communicated to the Manager, Committee
of
Management,
Chashmai
Rahmat
Oriental College, Ghazipur, the Registrar/
Inspector, Arabic-Persian Madrasa, U.P.,
Lucknow and the District Minority Welfare
Officer,
Ghazipur
by
the
Registrar
(Compliance).
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 977
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ - C No. 5107 of 2023

Mahesh Chandra Tiwari & Ors.
...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P..& Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Deepak Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sher Bahadur Singh

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the petitioners were entitled to a writ
of
mandamus
restraining
the
ongoing
construction of a pond under the 'Amrit Sarovar
Yojana' over land recorded as Banjar ?

HEADNOTE
Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of
mandamus - Restraint upon construction of
pond under 'Amrit Sarovar Yojana' - Petitioners
claiming lease granted in the year 1999 -
Counter affidavit asserting that pond is being
constructed under 'Amrit Sarovar Yojana' over
land bearing Gata No. 14 recorded as Banjar -
Petitioners recorded over Gata No. 14Ba - No
specific denial in rejoinder affidavit - Revenue
records indicating land as Banjar - Entries in
revenue record carry presumption of correctness
unless
rebutted
by
cogent
evidence
-
Petitioners failed to bring on record any material
to establish that the land over which the pond is
being constructed is recorded in their name or
forms part of their holding - 'Mission Amrit
Sarovar' scheme aimed at developing and
rejuvenating water bodies - Development of
'Amrit Sarovars' envisaged for augmenting water
resources and improving water ecology -
Welfare-oriented
and
environment-protective
initiative undertaken in the larger public interest
- Individual interest, if in conflict, to yield to
community interest - Maxim necessitas publica
major est quam privata - No demonstrable
infringement of petitioners' recorded rights or
possession - No ground for interference under
Article 226 .

HELD Land bearing Gata No. 14 recorded as
Banjar in the revenue records and the
construction of pond under the 'Amrit Sarovar
Yojana' was being made over the said plot and
not over the plot over which the petitioners
claim to be recorded as tenure holders. Entries
in the revenue record carry a presumption of
correctness unless rebutted by cogent evidence,
and the petitioners have failed to bring on
record any material to establish that the land
over which the pond is being constructed is
recorded in their name or that it forms part of
their holding. Construction of pond being a
welfare-oriented
and
environment-protective
initiative undertaken in the larger public interest,
any interference may be warranted only when
there is clear violation of individual rights or
statutory provisions, which has not been
demonstrated. In absence of any demonstrable
infringement of petitioners' recorded rights or
possession, no ground for interference under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India made out
and the writ petition dismissed. (Paras 16-21)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
Raj Kumar Bind v. State of U.P. and 4 Others.

List of Acts
Constitution of India.

27. List of Keywords
Writ of mandamus - Article 226 - Amrit
Sarovar Yojana - Mission Amrit Sarovar -
Construction of pond - Gata No. 14 Banjar -