# Shri Janardan Chaturvedi v. The Chancellor, Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture & Technology, Kanpur/Lucknow and others

- **Citation:** (2003) 2 ILRA 349
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-01-16
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 218 of 2003
- **Bench:** M. Katju, Prakash Krishna
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shri-janardan-chaturvedi-v-the-chancellor-chandra-shekhar-azad-university-of-40102
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

U.P. Municipalities Act- S-181- map
sanctioned
by
Municipal
Board
on
25.2.82-Construction started in March
82-U.P. Regulation of Building operation
Act 1958 came into force in District Basti
on 14.10.83- in progress of Construction
work stay order operation- Construction
could not be completed within on yearwhether
further
fresh
permission
required? Held-"No" matter of common
sense when the stay order was operation
how can a construction be completed
within one year- order passed by the
authorities quashed- Petition allowed
with cost of Rs.20,000/-.

Held- Para 5

It is evident from the perusal of the
three impugned orders that they are
based
on
the
premise
that
the
construction
on
the
strength
of
sanctioned
map
under
the
U.P.
Municipalities Act ought to have been
completed within a period of one year or
in any case prior to the enforcement of
the
Act.
This
approach
is
totally
perverse. The further finding of the
authors of the three impugned orders is
that there is no provision that in case the
on going constructions are stopped by
any authority in purported exercise of
powers, the duration of stay for which
the construction was stopped, would be
immaterial for computing the period of
one year as provided under sub-clause
(2)
of
section
181
of
the
U.P.
Municipalities Act. This finding is also
perverse. It is a matter of common sense
that if an act was initiated within the
specified period, the stoppage time in
view of intervention through stay orders
would have to be excluded. In that view
of the matter, the three impugned orders
are totally perverse and it appears have
been passed with malafide intention to
cause
harassment
and
loss
to
the
petitioner.

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Indian Council of Agricultural Research Krishi Bhawan V. R.B.S. College, Agra & others
349

16. In view of the above discussion
the impugned order of the Tribunal dated
27.4.2001 cannot be sustained and it is
hereby quashed. Petition allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.01.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH KRISHNA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 218 of 2003

Shri Janardan Chaturvedi
...Petitioner
Versus
The Chancellor, Chandra Shekhar Azad
University of Agriculture & Technology,
Kanpur/Lucknow and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Yogesh Agarwal
Sri S.N. Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri P. Padia
Sri Vipin Sinha
Sri R.G. Padia

Constitution of India- Article 226- since
there is a disputed question involved in
this case i.e. what is the nature of the
duties and functions of the petitioner- it
would be appropriate to relegate the
petitioner to his alternative remedy
under section 23 of the U.P. Agriculture
Universities Act.

Held -para 5

Since there is a disputed question
involved in this case what is the nature
of the duties and function of the
petitioner it would be appropriate to
delegate the petitioner to his alternative
remedy under Section 23 of the U.P.
Agriculture Universities Act.

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed
against
the
impugned
order
dated
27.12.2002 Annexure 1 to the writ
petition.

3. The petitioner is an employee of
Chandra Shekhar Azad University of
Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur. The
petitioner's date of birth is 1.1.43 and as
such he retired on reaching the age of 60
years on 31.12.2002. The petitioner
claimed that being a teacher of the
Institution he is entitled to continue till
the end of the academic sessions i.e. till
30.6.2003. Under Chapter 27 para7 of the
Statutes of the University which has been
quoted in para 9 of the writ petition a
teacher is entitled to continue till the end
of the academic session i.e. 30th June.
The question, therefore, is whether the
petitioner is a teacher as defined in the
Act.

4. Section 2 (k) of the U.P.
Agriculture Universities Act 1998 define
teacher as follows:

"Teacher" means a person appointed
or recognized by the University for the
purpose of imparting instruction or
conducting and guiding research or
extension programmes and includes a
person who may be declared by the
statutes to be a teacher"

5. The petitioner claimed that he is a
teacher in the University as defined in
Section 2 (k). However, in para 6 of the
counter affidavit it is stated that the
petitioner has never been a teacher in the
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
350
University and his basic job was to impart
training to the farmers in the various
villages. In our opinion since there is a
disputed question involved in this case
what is the nature of the duties and
function of the petitioner it would be
appropriate to delegate the petitioner to
his alternative remedy under Section 23 of
the U.P. Agriculture Universities Act. The
writ petition is, therefore, dismissed on
the ground of alternative remedy with the
liberty to the petitioner to file a
representation to the Chancellor under
Section 23 of the U.P. Agriculture
Universities Act and the Chancellor is
requested to decide the representation as
the earliest preferably within two months
in accordance with law after hearing
parties concerned.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD MARCH 3RD, 2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE D.P. SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24643 of 1988

Pradeep Kumar Pandey
...Petitioner
Versus
Sanjukta Sachieu Uttar Pradesh Shashan
Avas Anubhag-3 & others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.D. Pathak
Sri B.P. Singh
Sri Rakesh Pathak
Sri Dinesh Pathak

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Jokhen Prasad
S.C.

U.P. Municipalities Act- S-181- map
sanctioned
by
Municipal
Board
on
25.2.82-Construction started in March
82-U.P. Regulation of Building operation
Act 1958 came into force in District Basti
on 14.10.83- in progress of Construction
work stay order operation- Construction
could not be completed within on yearwhether
further
fresh
permission
required? Held-"No" matter of common
sense when the stay order was operation
how can a construction be completed
within one year- order passed by the
authorities quashed- Petition allowed
with cost of Rs.20,000/-.

Held- Para 5

It is evident from the perusal of the
three impugned orders that they are
based
on
the
premise
that
the
construction
on
the
strength
of
sanctioned
map
under
the
U.P.
Municipalities Act ought to have been
completed within a period of one year or
in any case prior to the enforcement of
the
Act.
This
approach
is
totally
perverse. The further finding of the
authors of the three impugned orders is
that there is no provision that in case the
on going constructions are stopped by
any authority in purported exercise of
powers, the duration of stay for which
the construction was stopped, would be
immaterial for computing the period of
one year as provided under sub-clause
(2)
of
section
181
of
the
U.P.
Municipalities Act. This finding is also
perverse. It is a matter of common sense
that if an act was initiated within the
specified period, the stoppage time in
view of intervention through stay orders
would have to be excluded. In that view
of the matter, the three impugned orders
are totally perverse and it appears have
been passed with malafide intention to
cause
harassment
and
loss
to
the
petitioner.

(Delivered by Hon'ble D.P. Singh, J.)

1. The present writ petition arises
out of proceedings under section 10 of the
U.P. Regulation of Building Operation