# Smt. Pooja and another 680 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013 v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2013) 2 ILRA 679
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-04-12
- **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-pooja-and-another-680-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-2013-v-state-of-u-42550
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-21- Petition
seeking protection from harassment-being
marriageable
couple-instead
of
approaching direction before Writ Courtshould first approach to Police-if no FIR
lodged against them or not wanted in any
case-Police
to
consider
the
age
and
marriage-give
proper
protection
from
harassment-taking in to consideration that
if both major-free to join the company to
their choice-petition disposed of.

Held: Para-14
In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances,
the
writ
petition
is
disposed
of
with
liberty
to
the
petitioners to approach the concerned
Superintendent
of
Police
or
Senior
Superintendent of Police and to appraise
him of the disturbance by outsiders in
their married life and in case it is so
done,
the
police
authorities
would
ensure that they are not put to any
threat or torture and their married life is
not disturbed provided they are prima
facie found to be of marriageable age
and married in accordance with law and
further that they are not wanted or
involved in any case in connection with
the above marriage or living together.

## Text

2 All] Mahendra Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others
679

2. Sri Pandey submits that this entire
transfer order is based on the request of
the Respondent-Shashi Kant Yadav who
moved an application before Dr. Paras
Nath Yadav a Minister of the State
Government of the Department of Minor
Irrigation and Animal Husbandry.

3. It is urged that the said Minister
passed an order on 30.1.2013 which is
endorsed on the application filed by Sri
Shashi Kant Yadav copy whereof is
Annexure-6 to the Writ petition. The
Minister has categorically directed the
Basic Education Officer to carry out the
transfer order as per the request of Shashi
Kant Yadav. Sri Pandey submits that it is
the request of Sri Shashi Kant Yadav
which has been translated into the transfer
order without there being any basis for the
complaint as alleged.

4. Sri Pandey, therefore, contends
that the order amounts to clear surrender
of jurisdiction before the Minister of
another
department
by
the
Basic
Education Officer on a totally false
pretext. He, therefore, submits the order
suffers from malice in law and deserves to
be set aside.

5. Sri Mrig Raj Singh contends that
there was a complaint against the
petitioner and that he is in possession of
the said complaint letter which has been
made the basis of the transfer.

6. Be that as it may, it remains
undisputed that the transfer may have
been apparently triggered on an alleged
complaint but it also stands established on
record that Mr. Shashi Kant Yadav was
accommodated against the same post on
the direction issued by the Minor
Irrigation
and
Animal
Husbandry
Minister. It is, therefore, clear to the Court
that the subsequent alleged complaint is
nothing else but a device to give cover to
the transfer order and, therefore, the order
suffers from malice in law. The Minister
of another department can only make a
request and he cannot pass an order for
the transfer of an Assistant Coordinator
who is under the Basic Education
Department. The Minister, therefore,
transgressed his authority and the Basic
Education Officer committed a manifest
error by surrendering to the jurisdiction of
the concerned Minister. If the head of
another department is allowed to pass
orders for a different department, the
entire administration would go haywire
and would, to an extent, violate the rules
of business. The order, therefore, suffers
from malice in law.

7. The impugned order dated
2.4.2013 is quashed.

8. The petitioner shall not be
disturbed from the place of his posting
under the impugned order.

9. So far as Sri Shashi Kant Yadav is
concerned, in the event he wants a
transfer on his own request, it is open to
him to approach the Basic Education
Oficer for the redressal of his grievance.

10. The writ petition is allowed.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.04.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20172 Of 2013

Smt. Pooja and another
..Petitioners
680 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
Versus
State of U.P. and others . ..Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri A.K.S. Bais

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India, Art.-21- Petition
seeking protection from harassment-being
marriageable
couple-instead
of
approaching direction before Writ Courtshould first approach to Police-if no FIR
lodged against them or not wanted in any
case-Police
to
consider
the
age
and
marriage-give
proper
protection
from
harassment-taking in to consideration that
if both major-free to join the company to
their choice-petition disposed of.

Held: Para-14
In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances,
the
writ
petition
is
disposed
of
with
liberty
to
the
petitioners to approach the concerned
Superintendent
of
Police
or
Senior
Superintendent of Police and to appraise
him of the disturbance by outsiders in
their married life and in case it is so
done,
the
police
authorities
would
ensure that they are not put to any
threat or torture and their married life is
not disturbed provided they are prima
facie found to be of marriageable age
and married in accordance with law and
further that they are not wanted or
involved in any case in connection with
the above marriage or living together.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned standing counsel
appearing for the State of U.P.

2. This is a stereotype writ petition
similar to large number of petitions
coming before this Court daily wherein
young girls and boys claim protection
from their parents and relatives alleging
threat by them with the support of police
to their life contending that they are adults
and have married with their own free will
but against the wishes of their elders.

3. The petitioners herein are also
claim that they are of marriageable age
and have married with their own free will
against the wishes of their parents and
therefore, their married life should be
protected by restraining the respondents
from interferening in their married life as
husband and wife.

4. The factum of the petitioners
being of marriageable age or the validity
or marriage cannot be adjudicated on the
basis of evaluation of the affidavits alone
in exercise of writ jurisdiction particularly
in
the
absence
of
certificates
of
registration of their respective dates of
birth and marriage which are compulsory
in law and the proof of their authenticity.
The said factual aspects are required to be
decided on the basis of the evidence
adduced by the parties before the
appropriate forum. In such a situation, this
Court is at a loss to make any conclusive
comments regarding the age of the
petitioners or the legality of their
marriage. Nonetheless as the right to
marriage has been recognized as a right to
life under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India vide Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P.
and another A.I.R. 2006 SC 2522 and it
has further been observed that the persons
of marriageable age are free to marry any
one of their choice and to live an
independent married life, they are entitle
to be given adequate protection so that
their married life, if validly entered, is not
disturbed
by
outsiders.
2 All] Smt.Pooja and another. Vs.State of U.P. and others
681

5. Normally when any such
disturbance is created in the life of a
married couple, they are supposed to
make a complaint or lodge an F.I.R.
whereupon the police would take action,
investigate
the
matter
and
provide
protection, if necessary.

6. On the other hand where the
parents of either of the parties allege that
marriage is not valid for certain reasons or
that the parties to the marriage are minor
or that the girl has been kidnapped or
there is likelihood of the marriage being
used as a disguise for immoral purpose,
they can also lodge a complaint or F.I.R.
with the police whereupon again the
matter
would
be
investigated
and
offenders punished in accordance with
law.

7. The petition is silent regarding
any complaint or F.I.R. being lodged by
either of the parties.

8. In Devendra Kumar and others
Vs. State of U.P. and others 2011 (6)
ADJ 208, a division bench of this Court
held that where there is no complaint or
F.I.R. against the married couple, the
police cannot take any coercive action
against them.

9. Another division bench of the
Allahabad High Court in Smt. Nandani
and another Vs. State of U.P. and
others 2013(1) ADJ 591 held that where
parties to the marriage are adults and have
chosen to live together as husband and
wife, police is required to give protection.

10. Similar is the view expressed by
the recent division bench in Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No.7305 of 2013 Smt. Raj
Kumari and another vs. State of U.P. and
others decided on 8.2.2013 wherein it is
held that "once the boy and girl are found
to be adults, it is the duty of the police as
well as the civil society to ensure that they
are not put to fear of their lives or liberty."

11. In view of above, if the married
party complaints of harassment, police
has to ensure that no harm is caused to
them merely for the reason that they have
married against the wishes of their parents
or against the tenets of the society
provided
they
are
found
to
be
marriageable age and legally weded.

12. In this settled legal scenario,
there is in fact no occasion for the
petitioners to invoke the writ jurisdiction
of this court as their grievance can be
satisfied by making a complaint or
lodging F.I.R. with the local police or by
approaching the Superintendent of Police
or Senior Superintendent of Police
concerned who is supposed to take steps
as per the law laid down above.

13. The practice of straight away
approaching this Court without raising
their grievance in writing before the
authorities below is not appricable rather
deprecated.

14. In view of the aforesaid facts
and circumstances, the writ petition is
disposed of with liberty to the petitioners
to approach the concerned Superintendent
of Police or Senior Superintendent of
Police and to appraise him of the
disturbance by outsiders in their married
life and in case it is so done, the police
authorities would ensure that they are not
put to any threat or torture and their
married life is not disturbed provided they
are
prima
facie
found
to
be
of
marriageable
age
and
married
in
682 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
accordance with law and further that they
are not wanted or involved in any case in
connection with the above marriage or
living together.

15. This order would not be treated
by any authority as a certificate of
marriage between the parties.

16. The writ petition is disposed of.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.04.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20797 Of 2013

Salik and others

 ...Petitioners
Versus
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
and Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Bhupendra Nath Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Sacchindra Upadhyay
Sri Ashok Mehta
Ms. Suman Sirohi

Constitution of India, Art. 226- Payment
of Court fee-where more than one
person-filed joint writ petition-claiming
similar
relief-for
enforcement
of
individual
Rights-Separate
Court
fee
payable.

Held: Para-19
The Court is of the opinion that in the
instant case, a joint writ petition filed by
the petitioners is for the enforcement of
its individual rights, and consequently,
joinder of more than one person though
permissible, but where the cause of
action is similar and not the same,
separate court fees is payable.

Case Law discussed:
AIR 1984 (All) 46; 1994 (2) UPLBEC 1228; AIR
2005 (All) 77; 1981 AIR (SC) 484; 1968 All LJ
210; AIR 1981 SC 484; 1991 AIR (All) 362;
2006 (4) SCC 484; 1994 (2) UPLBEC 1228

(Delivered by Hon'ble Hon'ble Tarun
Agarwala, J)

1. Sri Salik and 137 other exemployees of the erstwhile U.P. State
Cement
Corporation
Ltd.
Churk
Sonebhadra have filed the present writ
petition collectively praying for a writ of
mandamus commanding the Regional
Provident Commissioner-II, Varanasi and
Official
Liquidator
to
update
their
Provident Fund Accounts and pay the
entire Provident Fund dues including
pension. The facts leading to the filing of
the writ petition is, that the petitioners
contend that they are members of the
Employees Provident Fund Trust created
by the then management of the U.P. State
Cement Corporation Ltd. under the
Employees Provident Fund and Misc.
Provisions Act, 1952, which trust was
approved
by
the
Provident
Fund
Department. In this trust, the provident
fund contribution was regularly being
deducted
from
the
salary
of
the
petitioners. The Churk Unit of the U.P.
State Cement Corporation Ltd. was
wound up by an order of the Company
Judge dated 08.12.1999, and the Official
Liquidator was appointed as the liquidator
of the Company. From time to time, the
Company Judge has been passing various
orders directing the Official Liquidator to
provide the correct status of the Provident
Fund Trust. The accounts of this trust are
also being audited through an Auditor
recommended by the Regional Provident