# Smt. Rinki v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 1142
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-01-28
- **Case number:** Misc. Single No. 35387 of 2018
- **Bench:** Rajan Roy
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-rinki-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45630
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

C.S.C., Subhas Bisaria, W.U. Ahmad

A. Petitioner-seeking-declaration of result-of
B.Ed examination-in the academi session 20132014-to bring admission-to logical conclusionreliance placed-on a judgment passed bycoordinate
bench-in
Ankit
Kumar's
caseoverlooking the judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court-where
declarationof
result-post
16.9.2013-rendered impermissible.

Refered to larger bench-

## Text

1142 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
his counsel not to make such a statement.
Further, the statement was in respect of
the commitment of the appellant qua the
subject matter of the proceedings in which
the counsel was engaged and instructed to
appear. Not only that, right from the
beginning and even before this Court, an
attempt was made by the parties to explore
possibility of working out an amicable
solution, as is evident from the order dated
9.1.2017 before the respondent was put to
notice of these appeals, and more
particularly, dated 14.11.2017.

10. Considering the above, the
appellant cannot now be allowed to resile
from the statement made before the High
Court, which the High Court justly
declined to undo in the review petition
filed by the appellant for that purpose. In
the peculiar facts of this case, the decision
of this Court in Himalayan Coop. Group
Housing Society (supra) will be of no
avail to the appellant. Inasmuch as, it is
not a case where the counsel, who made
the statement was not engaged by the
appellant before the High Court. The
engagement was in respect of eviction
proceedings and the statement was in
relation
to
the
commitment of
the
appellant qua the subject matter thereof
and being an unequivocal statement, it will
be binding on the appellant. In any case,
even this Court showed indulgence to the
appellant on the basis of impression given
to this Court about the possibility of at
least sparing a small room for the
respondent, which was the basis for
issuing notice to the respondent, as is
evident from the orders dated 9.1.2017
and 15.2.2017."

24. Applying the aforesaid law to the
facts and circumstances of the present
case, we are of the considered opinion that
there is no sufficient ground for review of
judgment and order dated 04th May, 2015.

25. In the light of aforesaid
judgments, the application for review
deserves to be dismissed and the same is
hereby dismissed.
----------
(2020)02ILR A1142

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.01.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.

Misc. Single No. 35387 of 2018

Smt. Rinki ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Satya Prakash Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Subhas Bisaria, W.U. Ahmad

A. Petitioner-seeking-declaration of result-of
B.Ed examination-in the academi session 20132014-to bring admission-to logical conclusionreliance placed-on a judgment passed bycoordinate
bench-in
Ankit
Kumar's
caseoverlooking the judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court-where
declarationof
result-post
16.9.2013-rendered impermissible.

Refered to larger bench-

1. Whether open to State Govt. or this Court to
relax the time sch. Fixed by Hon'ble Apex
Court?- No.

2. Whether instruction of state to be acted
upon or this would amount to be act of
disobedience?-No deliberate attempt to mislead
the
Court-Not
liable
under
contempt
jurisdiction.
2 All. Smt. Rinki Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1143
Writ Petition dismissed. (E-8)

Held, since instructions of State Government
contained
in
its
communication
dated
28.11.2018 did not disclose full and complete
facts including the order dated 10.09.2018
passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on the
interlocutory application moved by State of U.P.
itself
(IA
No.1216
of
2017),
the
said
instructions could not be acted upon, however,
in absence of any specific instruction to learned
State counsel to submit before this Court that
State did not have any objection if result of
those admitted students is declared by the
University, the contempt proceedings against
officers
of
the
State
may
not
be
initiated/instituted.
Reference
made
is
answered thus.

List of cases cited:-

1. College of Professional Education and others
vs. State of U.P. and others, 2013 (2) SCC 721

2. Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya vs.
State of U.P. and others, (2013) 2 SCC 617

3. Bharat Builder Pvt Ltd and others vs. Parijat
Flat Owners Coop. Housing Society Ltd., (1999)
5 SCC 622

4. Bharat Earth Movers vs. Commissioner of
Income Tax, Karnataka, (2000) 6 SCC 645

5. Assistant Collector of Central Excise,
Chandan Nagar, West Bengal vs. Dunlop India
Ltd and others,(1985) 1 SCC 260
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, Shri Rajesh Tiwari for the State
and Shri Subhas Bisaria, learned counsel
for the opposite parties no. 3, 4 and 5.

2. This petition was filed on
05.12.2018 seeking the following relief:-

"(i) Issue a writ order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
thereby commanding and directing the
opposite party no. 1 and 2 to issue
necessary directive to the respondent no. 3
and 4 to declare the result of the petitioner
of the B.Ed. examination so held for the
academic session 2013-14 so that the
admission of the petitioner so made in
pursuance of the Government order dated
26.09.2013 and 08.10.2013 is brought to
its logical conclusion, in the interest of
justice."

3. Reliance was placed by the
petitioner
upon
a
judgment
dated
03.12.2018 passed by a Coordinate Bench
in a bunch of similar petitioners leading
petition being 4289 (M/S) of 2014, Ankit
Kumar and 7 others Vs. State of U.P. and
others. When this petition came up for
hearing, this Court found the said
judgment to be in conflict with the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as
such,
vide
order
dated
17.12.2018
following questions were referred for
consideration by a larger Bench:-

"(i) Whether it was open for the
State Government or this Court to have
relaxed the time schedule fixed under the
orders of the Apex Court in College of
Professional
Education
(Supra),
as
reiterated and re-enforced in Maa Vaishno
Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya (Supra), as
also the order dated 25.11.2013 passed in
I.A. No. 109 and 110 of 2013 in College of
Professional
Education,
fixing
16th
September, 2013, by permitting/directing
declaration of results of students admitted
in B.Ed Course in the Academic Session
2013-14 after 16.09.2013?

(ii) Whether the instructions of
the
State
Government
dated
28th
November, 2018 could be acted upon or
that
it
amounts
to
an
act
in
disobedience/derogation of the orders of
1144 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Apex Court, referred to above,
rendering the responsible officers of the
State liable to be proceeded with under
contempt jurisdiction, in view of the
observations contained in para 90.2 of the
Supreme Court judgment in Maa Vaishno
Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya (Supra)?

4. The larger Bench considered the
said questions and answered the same vide
its judgment dated 18.10.2019. The
relevant extract of the said judgment
answering question no. 1 is as under:-

"The said prayer was rejected,
as observed above, by Hon'ble Supreme
Court on 10.09.2018. Thus, it appears that
the said order was not brought to the
notice of this Court in the case of Ankit
Kumar which was decided subsequent to
the order dated 10.09.2018 passed by
Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e. on 03.12.2018.
Dismissal of IA No. 1216 of 2017 filed by
the State of U.P. by Hon'ble Supreme
Court vide its order dated 10.09.2018 does
not leave anyone in doubt that time
schedule relating to admission etc. in B.Ed
courses by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of College of Professional Education
and others (supra) was to be strictly
followed and in view of what we have
discussed above in reference to provision
of Article 141 and 144 of the Constitution
of India, we have no hesitation to hold that
it was open for any authority or body, be it
the State Government or even this Court,
to have in any manner relaxed the time
schedule as fixed by Hon'ble Supreme
Court
in
the
case
of
College
of
Professional
Education
and
others
(supra).

We thus answer the question no.
1 referred to us as follows.

It was not open either for the
State Government or this Court to have
relaxed the time schedule fixed by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of College of
Professional
Education
and
others
(supra) and that declaration of result of
students admitted in B.Ed course in the
academic
session
2013-2014
after
16.09.2013 is impermissible."

5. The relevant extract of the
judgment answering question no. 2 is as
under:-

"As
regards
question
no.2
referred to us, we may observe that
instructions of the State Government
contained in its communication dated
28.11.2018 did not instruct the State
Counsel to submit before this Court that
the State Government did not have any
objection if the result of the petitioners in
the
said
matter,
was
declared.
Nonetheless, we may notice that the said
communication dated 28.11.2018 though
notices
the
order
dated
25.11.2013
whereby Interlocutory Application Nos.
109-110 were dismissed by Hon'ble
Supreme Court, however, it does not make
any mention of the order dated 10.09.2018
which was passed by Hon'ble Supreme
Court on the interlocutory applications
made by the State of U.P. itself (IA No.
1216 of 2017) whereby prayer of the State
Government Order dated 08.10.2013, was
rejected.

It is needless to say that it is the
duty of every authority including the
authorities of the State Government and its
instrumentalities as well not only to
disclose correct facts before the Court but
also to disclose full and complete facts so
as to assist the Court appropriately in
discharge of its judicial functions.

Having observed as above, we
may only point out at this juncture that the
communication dated 28.11.2018 did not
2 All. Akhilesh Vs. A.D.J./Special Judge E.C. Act, Varanasi & Ors.
1145
instruct
learned
Standing
Counsel
appearing for the State of U.P. to make
any such statement that the State had no
objection in case result of the petitioners
of the said case was declared by
University. the manner in which the case
of Ankit Kumar was conducted on behalf
of State of U.P. though cannot be
appreciated for non-disclosure of full and
complete facts, however, we do not find it
a case of any deliberate attempt by the
officers of the State Government to
mislead the Court so as to make the
officers liable to be proceeded against,
under contempt jurisdiction. In this view of
the matter, question no. 2 referred to us is
answered as follows:

Since
instructions
of
State
Government
contained
in
its
communication dated 28.11.2018 did not
disclose full and complete facts including
the order dated 10.09.2018 passed by
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
on
the
interlocutory application moved by State
of U.P. itself (IA No. 1216 of 2017), the
said instructions could not be acted upon,
however, in absence of any specific
instruction to learned State Counsel to
submit before this Court that State did not
have any objection if result of those
admitted students is declared by the
University, the contempt proceedings
against officers of the State may not be
initiated/instituted.

Reference made is answer thus."

6. In view of the aforesaid decision of the
larger Bench and the answer given to the
questions referred to it, as admittedly the
petitioner was granted admissions subsequent
to 16.09.2013, in non-adherence and violation
to the time schedule fixed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, the relief prayed for in this
petition cannot be granted. It is accordingly
declined.

7. The petition is dismissed with the
aforesaid observations.
----------
(2020)02ILR A1145

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.

Matters Under Article-227 No. 118 of 2020
(Civil)

Akhilesh ...Petitioner
Versus
A.D.J./Special Judge E.C. Act, Varanasi &
Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, Sri Ashish Kumar
Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Raj Kumar Kesari

A. Election Petition - U.P. Kshettra
Panchayats
and
Zila
Panchayats
Adhiniyam, 1961- Section 27- Disputes as
to membership or disqualification - U.P.
Zila Panchayats (Settlement of Disputes
Relating to Membership) Rules, 1994 -
Rule 3 - Manner of raising disputes under
Section 27(1) - Rule 4 - Manner of raising
disputes under Section 27(2)(a) and (b) -
Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 3 - Bar of
limitation - Section 5 - delay condonation
- Election Petition filed beyond the
Limitation - defence of limitation not
taken, under Section 3(1) of the of the
Limitation Act - question of limitation is a
question of jurisdiction - order rejecting
recall application no. 111C and order
condoning delay in filing Election petition
- quashed.(Para-11,12)

An election for electing a member of Zila
Panchayat Ward/Sector was held - result
declared - writ petition filed challenging