# Smt. Sita Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 10 ILRA 545
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-09-28
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7446 of 2021
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Gautam Chowdhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-sita-devi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46372
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A.G.A., Sri Brijendra Kumar, Sri V.K. Ojha

Petitioner eeceived a notice dated
27.03.2014 to show cause how she is
raising construction without obtaining
permission-Petitioner
submitted
componding bulding plan-instead of
assisting Petitioner and ascertaining
distance of plot from required areabuilding plan was rejected-after four
years
of
rejection
of
aforesaid
building plan, the Respondent no.3
through
building
inspector
lodged
impugned
FIR-Harrasment
of
a
common man by public authorities is
socially
abhorring
and
legally
impermissible.

Held, The officers of the respondent -
Development Authorities are not expected to
act as hounds smelling a rat everywhere and
put an undesirable restraint or hindrances in
granting permission or sanction of building
map filed by an individual, particularly in
matters of small houses, like the present one
and to harass further lodge first information
report to book the applicant/ petitioner to
initiate malafidely criminal proceedings. (para
21)

Stay of Petitioner's arrest. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

10 All. Smt. Sita Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
545
each be imposed instead of sending them to
jail.

21. Accused-appellant is directed to
deposit the fine of Rs. 1,000/- each before
learned lower court within two months
from the date of passing of the judgement
and in default of payment of fine accusedappellants shall further undergo 15 days
simple imprisonment.

22. Appeal is partly allowed in the
above terms.

23. Copy of this order be transmitted
to the concerned lower court forthwith for
compliance.

24. The party shall file computer
generated copy of such order downloaded
from the official website of High Court
Allahabad, self attested by the learned
counsel for the applicant alongwith a self
attested identity proof of the said persons
(preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the
mobile number (s) to which the said
Aadhar Card is linked before the concerned
Court/Authority/Official.

25. The concerned Court/ Authority/
Official shall verify the authenticity of such
computerized copy of the order from the
official website of High Court Allahabad
and shall make a declaration of such
verification in writing.
----------
(2021)10ILR A545
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J
THE HON'BLE GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7446 of 2021

Smt. Sita Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ....Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Chandra Shekhar Singh, Sri Vinay Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A., Sri Brijendra Kumar, Sri V.K. Ojha

Petitioner eeceived a notice dated
27.03.2014 to show cause how she is
raising construction without obtaining
permission-Petitioner
submitted
componding bulding plan-instead of
assisting Petitioner and ascertaining
distance of plot from required areabuilding plan was rejected-after four
years
of
rejection
of
aforesaid
building plan, the Respondent no.3
through
building
inspector
lodged
impugned
FIR-Harrasment
of
a
common man by public authorities is
socially
abhorring
and
legally
impermissible.

Held, The officers of the respondent -
Development Authorities are not expected to
act as hounds smelling a rat everywhere and
put an undesirable restraint or hindrances in
granting permission or sanction of building
map filed by an individual, particularly in
matters of small houses, like the present one
and to harass further lodge first information
report to book the applicant/ petitioner to
initiate malafidely criminal proceedings. (para
21)

Stay of Petitioner's arrest. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. N. Nagendra Rao & Co. Vs St. of A.P. (1994) 6
SCC 205

2. Common Cause, A Registered Society Vs
U.O.I. & ors., (1996)6 SCC 530 (Para 26)

3. Shivsagar Tiwari Vs U.O.I. & ors. (1996) 6
SCC 558
546 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
4. Delhi Development Authority Vs Skipper
Construction & anr. AIR 1996 SC 715

5. Mohammad Iqbal & anr. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
2016 (9) ADJ 593

6. Natural Resources Allocation, In re, Special
Reference No. 1 of 2002, (2012) 10 SCC 1

7. M/s Transport Corporation of India Ltd.,
Hyderabad Vs Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P.,
1998 UPTC 950

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya
Prakash Kesarwani, J.
&
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary, J.)

1. On oral request of learned counsel
for the petitioner, Principal Secretary Urban
Planning and Development, Government of
Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, is allowed to be
impleaded as respondent no. 4.

2. Necessary correction in the array of
parties be carried out during the course of
the day.

3. Heard Sri Chandra Shekher Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Patanjali Mishra, learned A.G.A. for
respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri V.K. Ojha,
learned counsel for respondent no. 3.

4. This writ petition has been filed
praying for the following reliefs:-

"i. To issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari quashing
the impugned First Information Report dated
08.03.2021 registered against the petitioner
as Case Crime No. 0219 of 2021, P.S. Naini,
Prayagraj, under section 447 I.P.C. and
28(1) U.P. Urban Planning and Development
Act, 1973, (Annexure No. 1 to this Writ
Petition).

ii. To issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the Respondent no. 4 not to
arrest the Petitioner during the pendency of
this writ petition."

5. The petitioner is the wife of a retired
army personnel. It appears that in the year
2013-2014, she started constructions over the
plot of 153.36 square meters being part of
Arazi No. 107/1, Village- Chaka, Tehsil-
Karchana, District- Allahabad, which fall
within regulatory area of the respondent no.
3, i.e., Prayagraj Development Authority,
District- Prayagraj. However, she received a
notice dated 27.03.2014, issued by the Zonal
Officer of the respondent no. 3, requiring her
to show cause as to how she is raising
construction without obtaining permission
from the respondent no. 3. It appears that,
thereafter,
the
petitioner
submitted
a
compounding building plan vide application
dated 21.08.2017 and also deposited the
requisite fees vide receipt no. 1829, book no.
219, dated 21.08.2017, Rs. 1,880/-. Again a
notice dated 26.08.2017 was issued by the
Zonal
Officer,
Allahabad
Development
Authority, Allahabad, to the petitioner, which
is reproduced below:-

"प्रेर्ि,

िोनल अकधिारी,

इलाहाबाद कविास प्राकधिरण,

इलाहाबाद।

सेवा में,

श्रीमिी सीिा देवी,

पत्नी श्री राम लाल सरोि,

कनवाकसनी- ग्राम अिुगनपुर, िहसील
पट्टी,

किला प्रिापगढ़।

पत्रांिः-
०7/िोन-4/उप०4सी/िमन/कव०प्रा०/2०17-18
कदनांि
26.०8.2०17
10 All. Smt. Sita Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
547

कवर्यः- आफ आरािी संख्या 1०7/ए, मौिा
चािा अरैल िरछना, इलाहाबाद में दास्खल
िमन मानकचत्र िे सम्बन्ध में।

महोदय,

उपयुगक्त कवर्यि िे सम्बन्ध में
अवगि िराना है कि आप द्वारा आरािी संख्या
1०7, मौिा चािा अरैल, िरछना, इलाहाबाद
िा िमन मानकचत्र स्वीिृकि हेिु दास्खल किया
गया है। मानचित्र मे दचशित Key Plan में स्थल
की दूरी स्पष्ट नहीीं हो पार रही है। Key Plan
में पुराना यमुना चिज रीवा रोड एींव नया
यमुना चिज रोड जहाीं पर चमलती है, उसके
क्राचसींग से रीवा रोड की दूरी एींव रीवा रोड से
स्थल की दूरी प्रमुख Land Mark को चदखाते
हुए अींचकत कराना होगा, चजससे भू- उपयोग
आख्या प्राप्त करना सम्भव होगा।

अिः आप पत्र प्रास्प्त िे एि सप्ताह
िे भीिर उपरोक्तानुसार िमन मानकचत्र में
संिोधन िरना सुकनकिि िरें।

भवदीय,

ह० अप०

िोनल अकधिारी,

इलाहाबाद कविास प्राकधिरण,

इलाहाबाद।"

6. The aforesaid notice was allegedly
sent by the Zonal Officer to the petitioner
at the address "Village-Arjanpur, Tehsil-
Patti, Pratapgarh".

7. It appears that, thereafter, instead
of assisting the petitioner and ascertaining
the distance of the plot from Reeva Road,
New Yamuna Bridge Road crossing and
also from Reeva Road as main land mark,
the respondent no. 3 rejected the building
plan by order dated 28.09.2017, which is
reproduced below:-

"प्रेर्ि,

िोनल अकधिारी,

इलाहाबाद कविास प्राकधिरण,

इलाहाबाद।

सेवा में,

श्रीमिी सीिा देवी,

पत्नी श्री राम लाल सरोि,

कनवाकसनी- ग्राम अिुगनपुर, िहसील
पट्टी,

किला प्रिापगढ़।

पत्रांिः-
24/िोन-4/उप०4बी/िमन/कव०प्रा०/2०17-18
कदनांि
28.०9.2०17

कवर्यः- पाटग आफ आरािी संख्या 1०7/ए,
मौिा चािा परगना अरैल, िहसीन िरछना,
इलाहाबाद में दास्खल िमन मानकचत्र िे सम्बन्ध
0में।

महोदया,

िृपया आपिे द्वारा पाटग आफ
आरािी संख्या 1०7/ए,मौिा चािा, अरैल,
िरछना, इलाहाबाद िे दास्खल िमन मानकचत्र
िी आपकियों िे कनरािरण एंव संिोकधि िमन
मानकचत्र दास्खल िरने हुिे पत्र कदनांि
26.8.2०17 िे द्वारा सूकचि किया गया, किन्तु
आप द्वारा आपकि िा कनरािरण िरािर
संिोकधि िमन मानकचत्र दास्खल नहीं किया
गया। आपचि चनराकरण के अभाव में
उपरोक्तानुसार दाखखल शमन मानचित्र
अस्वीकृत चकया जाता है। आप थिल पर
किसी प्रिार िा कनमागण प्रारम्भ न िरें, अन्यिा
कनमागण िे कवरूद्ध उिर प्रदेि नगर कनयोिन
एंव कविास अकधकनयम 1973 िी सुसंगि
धाराओं िे अन्तगगि ध्वस्तीिरण िी िायगवाही
िी िायेगी, किसिी सम्पूणग किम्मेदारी आपिी
होगी।

भवदीय,

ह० अप०

िोनल अकधिारी,

इलाहाबाद कविास प्राकधिरण,
548 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

इलाहाबाद।"

8. After four years of rejection of the
aforesaid building plan, the respondent no.
3 through building inspector, lodged the
impugned First Information Report No.
0219 / 2021, dated 08.03.2021, under
Sections 447 I.P.C. and Section 28 (1) of
the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and
Development
Act,
1973
(hereinafter
referred to as "Act of 1973"), alleging that
the construction has been completed by the
petitioner
which
has
resulted
in
commission of a cognizable offence.

9. From perusal of the counter
affidavit/personal
affidavit
dated
27.09.2021, filed today by respondent no.
3, it appears
that the order dated
10.10.2017 was passed by the Zonal
Officer granting sanction for prosecution
against the petitioner under Section 49 of
the Act of 1973. The counter affidavit
filed by respondent no. 3 is totally silent
on the point as to whether after granting
sanction for prosecution vide order
dated 10.10.2017, a complaint under the
Act of 1973 was filed by respondent no.
3?

10. Section 48 of the Act of 1973
provides that "No Court inferior to that
Magistrate of the first class shall try an
offence
punishable
under
this
Act".
However, the impugned F.I.R. has been
lodged by the building inspector for alleged
commission of offence under Section 28
(1) of the Act of 1973.

11. From the facts as briefly noted
above, it prima facie appears to us that
no defect was found by respondent no. 3
in the building plan, submitted by the
petitioner. By notice dated 26.08.2017,
respondent no. 3, merely, required the
petitioner to give details of distances so
as to show land mark. For this purpose,
respondent no. 3 / its officers could have
assisted the petitioner and could have
ascertained the distance even from their
own records or on the field and thus,
could assist the petitioner to remove the
objection. Unfortunately, even after 75
years of independence, public servants
could not realize their responsibilities to
assist public and not to create hindrance
and obstructions in getting the building
plan sanctioned.

12. At this juncture, we are reminded
of the observations made by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of N. Nagendra
Rao & Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh
(1994) 6 SCC 205, which is reproduced
below:-

"25. But there the immunity ends.
No civilised system can permit an
executive to play with the people of its
country and claim that it is entitled to act
in any manner as it is sovereign. The
concept of public interest has changed with
structural change in the society. No legal
or political system today can place the
State above law as it is unjust and unfair
for a citizen to be deprived of his property
illegally by negligent act of officers of the
State without any remedy. From sincerity,
efficiency and dignity of State as a juristic
person, propounded in nineteenth century
as sound sociological basis for State
immunity the circle has gone round and the
emphasis now is more on liberty, equality
and the rule of law. The modern social
thinking of progressive societies and the
judicial approach is to do away with
archaic State protection and place the State
or the Government on a par with any other
juristic
legal
entity.
Any
watertight
compartmentalization of the functions of
10 All. Smt. Sita Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
549
the State as "sovereign and non-sovereign"
or "governmental and non-governmental"
is not sound. It is contrary to modem
jurisprudential thinking. The need of the
State to have extraordinary powers cannot
be doubted. But with the conceptual change
of statutory power being statutory duty for
sake of society and the people the claim of
a common man or ordinary citizen cannot
be thrown out merely because it was done
by an officer of the State even though it was
against law and negligent. Needs of the
State, duty of its officials and right of the
citizens are required to be reconciled so
that the rule of law in a Welfare State is
not shaken. Even in America where this
doctrine of sovereignty found its place
either because of the "financial instability
of the infant American States rather than to
the stability of the doctrine's theoretical
foundation", or because of "logical and
practical ground", or that "there could be
no legal right as against the State which
made the law" gradually gave way to the
movement from, "State irresponsibility to
State responsibility". In Welfare State,
functions of the State are not only defence
of the country or administration of justice
or maintaining law and order but it extends
to regulating and controlling the activities
of
people
in
almost
every
sphere,
educational, commercial, social, economic,
political
and
even
marital.
The
demarcating line between sovereign and
non-sovereign
powers
for
which
no
rational
basis
survives
has
largely
disappeared. Therefore, barring functions
such
as
administration
of
justice,
maintenance of law and order and
repression of crime etc. which are among
the primary and inalienable functions of a
constitutional
Government,
the
State
cannot
claim
any
immunity.
The
determination of vicarious liability of the
State being linked with negligence of its
officers, if they can be sued personally for
which there is no dearth of authority and
the law of misfeasance in discharge of
public duty having marched ahead, there is
no rationale for the proposition that even if
the officer is liable the State cannot be
sued. The liability of the officer personally
was
not
doubted
even
in
Viscount
Canterbury4. But the Crown was held
immune on doctrine of sovereign immunity.
Since the doctrine has become outdated
and sovereignty now vests in the people,
the State cannot claim any immunity and if
a suit is maintainable against the officer
personally, then there is no reason to hold
that it would not be maintainable against
the State."

(Emphasis supplied by me)

13.

In
Common
Cause,
A
Registered Society v. Union of India and
others, (1996)6 SCC 530 (Para 26),
Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

"No public servant can say "you
may set aside an order on the ground of
malafide
but
you
cannot
hold
me
personally liable". No public servant can
arrogate to himself the power to act in a
manner which is arbitrary".

14. In Shivsagar Tiwari Vs. Union
of India and others (1996) 6 SCC 558,
Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted with
approval of the observations of Edmund
Burke, as under:

"An arbitrary system indeed must
always be a corrupt one. There never was a
man who thought he had no law but his
own will, who did not soon find that he had
no end but his own profit."

15. In Delhi Development Authority
Vs. Skipper Construction and Another
550 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
AIR 1996 SC 715 (Para 6) Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed as under:

"A democratic Government does
not mean a lax Government. The rules of
procedure and/or principles of natural
justice are not meant to enable the guilty to
delay and defect the just retribution. The
wheel of justice may appear to grind slowly
but it is duty of all of us to ensure that they
do grind steadily and grind well and truly.
The justice system cannot be allowed to
become soft, supine and spineless."

16. In Mohammad Iqbal and Anr.
v. State of U.P. and others 2016 (9) ADJ
593 (Para 11 and 17), this Court held as
under:

"11. In a democratic system
governed by rule of law, Government does
not mean a lax Government. The public
servants hold their offices in trust and are
expected to perform with due diligence
particularly so that their action or inaction
may not cause any undue hardship and
harassment to a common man. Whenever it
comes to the notice of this Court that
Government or its officials have acted with
gross negligence and unmindful action
causing harassment of a common and
helpless man, this Court has and never
would be a silent spectator but always
react to bring authorities within rule book
or to make them accountable."

17. We, therefore dispose of this
writ petition with cost of Rs.2 lacs which
shall be paid at the first instance by
respondent-1 since respondent-3 is the
official and agent of respondent-1, but it
shall have liberty to recover such amount
from
authority
concerned
who
is
responsible for such illegal action of
detention
of
petitioner's
vehicle
on
3.10.2014 and onwards."

17.

In
Natural
Resources
Allocation, In re, Special Reference No. 1
of 2002, (2012) 10 SCC 1 (Para 172 and
184) Hon'ble Supreme Court held, as
under:

"172.The judgment in LDA case
brings out the foundational principle of
executive
governance.
The
said
foundational principle is based on the
realisation that sovereignty vests in the
people. The judgment, therefore, records
that every limb of the constitutional
machinery is obliged to be people oriented.
The fundamental principle brought out by
the judgment is that a public authority
exercising public power discharges a
public duty, and, therefore has to subserve
general welfare and common good. All
power should be exercised for the sake of
society. The issue which was the subjectmatter of consideration, and has been
noticed along with the citation was decided
by concluding that compensation shall be
payable by the State (or its instrumentality)
where
inappropriate
deprivation
on
account of improper exercise of discretion
has resulted in a loss, compensation is
payable
by
the
State
(
or
its
instrumentality). But where the public
functionary
exercises
his
discretion
capriciously, or for considerations which
are malafide, the public functionary
himself must shoulder the burden of
compensation held as payable. The reason
for shifting the onus to the public
functionary deserves notice. This Court felt
that when a court directs payment of
damages or compensation against the
State, the ultimate sufferer is the common
man, because it is taxpayers' money out of
which damages and costs are paid.

184.
Another
aspect
which
emerges from the judgments (extracted in
paras 159 to 182, above) is that, the State,
10 All. Smt. Sita Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
551
its instrumentalities and their functionaries,
while exercising their executive power in
matters of trade or business, etc. including
making of contracts, should be mindful of
public interest, public purpose and public
good. This is so, because every holder of
public office by virtue of which he acts on
behalf of the State, or its instrumentalities,
is ultimately accountable to the people in
whom sovereignty vests. As such, all
powers vested in the State are meant to be
exercised for public good and in public
interest.
Therefore,
the
question
of
unfettered discretion in an executive
authority, just does not arise. The fetters
on discretion are clear, transparent and
objective criteria or procedure which
promotes public interest, public purpose
and public good. A public authority is
ordained, therefore to act, reasonably and
in good faith and upon lawful and relevant
grounds of public interest."

(Emphasis supplied by me)

18. The respondents are State
within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution of India. They are public
functionary. As per Constitution, the
sovereignty
vests
in
people.
Every
government functionary including the
public authorities are obliged to be
people oriented. The public officers are
public servants and they have been
employed to serve people. They are
accountable for their illegal acts and for
violating
the
Constitutional
and
Statutory provisions. They cannot be a
cause for harassment to the people. An
ordinary citizen or a common man is
hardly equipped to match such might of
the
officers
of
the
State
or
instrumentalities
of
the
StateGovernments. Harassment of a common
man by public authorities is socially
abhorring and legally impermissible.

19. No civilized system can permit an
executive to play with the people of its
country and claim that it is entitled to act in
any manner as it is sovereign. The public
servants hold their offices in trust and are
expected to perform with due diligence
particularly so that their action or inaction
may not cause any undue hardship and
harassment to a common man. Every
holder of public office by virtue of which
he acts on behalf of the State, or its
instrumentalities, is ultimately accountable
to the people in whom sovereignty vests.
No legal or political system today can place
the State above law as it is unjust and
unfair for a citizen to be deprived of his
property illegally. No public servant can
say you may set aside an order on the
ground of malafide but you cannot hold me
personally liable. No public servant can
arrogate to himself the power to act in a
manner which is arbitrary. Needs of the
State, duty of its officials and right of the
citizens are required to be reconciled so
that the rule of law in a Welfare State is not
shaken. A public functionary if he acts
maliciously
or
oppressively
and
the
exercise of power results in harassment and
agony then it is not an exercise of power
but its abuse. Harassment of a common
man by public authorities is socially
abhorring and legally impermissible. In a
modern society no authority can arrogate to
itself the power to act in a manner which is
arbitrary. It is unfortunate that matters
which require immediate attention linger on
and the man in the street is made to run
from one end to other with no result. Even
in ordinary matters a common man who has
neither the political backing nor the
financial strength to match the inaction in
public oriented departments gets frustrated
and it erodes the credibility in the system.
Where the public functionary exercises his
discretion
capriciously,
or
for
552 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
considerations which are malafide or where
there is flagrant abuse of power the public
functionary himself must shoulder the
burden of costs or compensation held as
payable.

20. In the case of M/s Transport
Corporation of India Ltd., Hyderabad
vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P.,
1998 UPTC 950 (para-5), learned Single
Judge of this Court has observed in the
matter of interception of truck by Trade
Tax Authorities that drivers need help and
guidance and officers at the check post, are
expected to render them the necessary help
and guidance and any minor deficiency
should be ignored or got rectified. They are
not expected to act as hounds smelling a rat
everywhere and put undesirable restraint on
the movements of goods.

21. The observations made in the
aforesaid judgment, in principle, applies on the
facts of the present case also. The officers of the
respondent - Development Authorities are not
expected to act as hounds smelling a rat
everywhere and put an undesirable restraint or
hindrances in granting permission or sanction of
building map filed by an individual, particularly
in matters of small houses, like the present one
and to harass further lodge first information
report to book the applicant/ petitioner to initiate
malafidely criminal proceedings.

22. Although, we intended to conclude
this judgment today but the learned A.G.A.
and respondent no. 3 made statements on
instruction that the respondents themselves
will
examine
the
matter
for
taking
appropriate decision/action and, therefore,
the case may be adjourned for the day.

23. As prayed by learned A.G.A. and
respondent no. 3, put up as a fresh case on
25.10.2021 for further hearing.

24. On the next date fixed, respondent
nos. 3 and 4 shall file their personal affidavits.

25.

Considering
the
facts
and
circumstances
of
the
case,
as
briefly
noted/discussed above, as well as the provisions
of Section 48 of the Act of 1973, as an interim
measure, it is provided that till next date fixed,
the petitioner shall not be arrested.

26. This order has been passed in
presence of Sri Arvind Chauhan, Vice
Chairman, Prayagraj Development Authority
and Sri R.S. Verma, Law Officer, Prayagraj
Development Authority, who are present in
Court.

27. It is made clear that both the
aforesaid officers are not required to
remain personally present before this
Court on the next date fixed.
----------
(2021)10ILR A552
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J
THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5477 of 2021
with
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5439 of 2021
with
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5521 of 2021

Faheem ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ....Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Mohammad Akram

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.