# Sri Aman Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others AND

- **Citation:** (2005) 2 ILRA 571
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-05-09
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28388 of 2005
- **Bench:** Vineet Saran
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sri-aman-singh-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-and-40490
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Constitution of India, 226- Locus Standi-
contract drivers working since 8 years-
during ban period on fresh appointment-
on
direction
of
High
Court-a
Sub
Committee
constituted-report
of
committee
challenged-Petitioners
no
where disclosed in their petition in what
manner they are going to be affected-
unless
P.I.L.-petition
can
not
be
maintained- held- the report as well as
advertisement are with regards to such
class of persons- in which the petitioners
being working as driver on contract
basis-can be affected by the action of
corporation- hence it is the right of
petitioner to get the issue decided on
merit-preliminary objection rejected.

Held- Para 16 and 17

Thus the law on the subject is clearly to
the effect that the party approaching this
Court is entitled to substantial and real
justice. The procedure, which is viewed
as handmaid of justice, should not
hamper the ends of justice. It should be
liberally construed to make it workable
and advance the cause of justice. The
Courts, while dealing with such issues,
should take a positive and constructive
approach. It has to break the shackles of
technicalities and reach out to the real
issues
and
if
the
cause
demands,
proceed to adjudicate the case on merits
instead of getting entangled in the hyper
technicalities of law.

Admittedly, the report which has been
submitted and the advertisement, which
has been issued, are with regard to the
contract drivers, a class of persons in
which all the petitioners fall. Thus, the
petitioners, being contract drivers, are
the persons who are affected by such
action of the corporation.
Case law discussed:
1977 (2) SCC-148
2002 (4) SCC-34
AIR 1998 SC-3104
AIR 1988 SC- 2181
AIR 1966 SC-81
AIR 1984 SC-802
2002 (I) SCC-33
2004 (6) SCC-254
2005 (i) UPLBEC- 268

## Text

2 All] Ram Das Singh V. State of U.P. and others

 571
8. The petitioner is entitled to all the
post retiral benefits treating his date of
birth as 26.02.1941 and his date of
superannuation
as
28.02.1999
as
mentioned in the notice issued by the
office of the Assistant Engineer, Fatehpur,
dated 02.09.1998. The entire exercise for
determination of the post retiral benefits
due to the petitioner shall be made within
a period of three months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order
and payment due upon such determination
shall be made within further one month
from the date of determination. The
petitioner would also be entitled to 8%
simple interest on the amount due for the
delayed period from the date it became
due till date of actual payment as he had
been denied post retiral benefits at least
treating his date of birth to be of 1939 for
no reason and without any fault.

The writ petition is accordingly
allowed.
Petition Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: THE ALLAHABAD: 9.5.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28388 of 2005

Sri Aman Singh and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents
AND
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30011 of 2005
Bijendra Pandey and others vs. State of U.P.
and others
AND
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30437 of 2005
Ram Prasad vs. State of U.P. and others
AND
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30697 of 2005
Gauri Shanker Singh & others vs. State of U.P.
and others
AND
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31396 of 2005
Rajesh Kumar and others vs. State of U.P. and
others
AND
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31932 of 2005
Khusi Ram vs. U.P.S.R.T.C. and others
AND
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31735 of 2005
Brijesh Kumar and others vs. State of U.P. and
others
AND
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32645 of 2005
Dinesh Kumar Rai and others vs. Managing
Director & others
AND
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33328 of 2005
Mohammad
Naeem
and
others
vs.
U.P.S.R.T.C. and others
AND
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.33484 of 2005
Bhawani Shanker & others vs. State of U.P.
and others
AND
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34295 of 2005
Takesh Pandey & others vs. Managing Director
& others
AND
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34233 of 2005
Deena Nath Singh& others vs. State of U.P.
and others
AND
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34277 of 2005
Kamlesh Kumar Chaurasiya & ors vs. State of
U.P. and others
AND
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34248 of 2005
Dhaneshwar Das & others vs. State of U.P.
and others
AND
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35056 of 2005
Shri Sant Kumar vs. U.P.S.R.T.C. and others
AND
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34705 of 2005
Rakesh Kumar vs. Managing Director and
others
AND
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35597 of 2005
Raj Nath Yadav and others vs. State of U.P.
and others
572 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
AND
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35605 of 2005
Awadhesh Kumar Misra & others vs. State of
U.P. & others

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri V.K. Singh
Sri A.K. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Sameer Sharma, S.C.

Constitution of India, 226- Locus Standi-
contract drivers working since 8 years-
during ban period on fresh appointment-
on
direction
of
High
Court-a
Sub
Committee
constituted-report
of
committee
challenged-Petitioners
no
where disclosed in their petition in what
manner they are going to be affected-
unless
P.I.L.-petition
can
not
be
maintained- held- the report as well as
advertisement are with regards to such
class of persons- in which the petitioners
being working as driver on contract
basis-can be affected by the action of
corporation- hence it is the right of
petitioner to get the issue decided on
merit-preliminary objection rejected.

Held- Para 16 and 17

Thus the law on the subject is clearly to
the effect that the party approaching this
Court is entitled to substantial and real
justice. The procedure, which is viewed
as handmaid of justice, should not
hamper the ends of justice. It should be
liberally construed to make it workable
and advance the cause of justice. The
Courts, while dealing with such issues,
should take a positive and constructive
approach. It has to break the shackles of
technicalities and reach out to the real
issues
and
if
the
cause
demands,
proceed to adjudicate the case on merits
instead of getting entangled in the hyper
technicalities of law.

Admittedly, the report which has been
submitted and the advertisement, which
has been issued, are with regard to the
contract drivers, a class of persons in
which all the petitioners fall. Thus, the
petitioners, being contract drivers, are
the persons who are affected by such
action of the corporation.
Case law discussed:
1977 (2) SCC-148
2002 (4) SCC-34
AIR 1998 SC-3104
AIR 1988 SC- 2181
AIR 1966 SC-81
AIR 1984 SC-802
2002 (I) SCC-33
2004 (6) SCC-254
2005 (i) UPLBEC- 268

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.)

1. This bunch of writ petitions is a
sequel to the earlier set of writ petitions,
decided by this Court on 22.2.2005, and
of which writ petition no. 48316 of 2004
was treated as the leading writ petition.
The issue involved earlier also was with
regard to the rights of the petitioners who
were engaged by the corporation as
drivers on the basis of contract. Such
drivers had continued to work with the
respondent- Corporation for a period
ranging from 2 to 8 years. Their
engagement had been made on contract
basis because there was a ban imposed by
the
State
Government
on
regular
appointments
of
any
fresh
drivers.
Undisputedly the corporation needed
working hands for drivers their buses and
it was at that time when, after adopting a
selection process, the Corporation had
selected drivers who were engaged on
contract basis. After the posts of drivers
were sanctioned by the State Government,
the Corporation issued an advertisement
dated 28.10.2004 for filling up the posts
in which the petitioners claimed that they
ought to have been given some relaxation
and/or preference. By the judgment and
2 All] Sri Aman Singh and others V. State of U.P. and others

 573
order dated 22.2.2005 rendered in writ
petition no. 48316 of 2004, this Court had
issued directions for looking into the
grievances of the petitioners for which a
joint committee of the State Government
and the corporation was to be constituted,
and which was to submit its report
regarding
the
relaxation
and
/or
preference which was to be granted to the
contract drivers within the ambit of
Regulations of 1981.

2. In terms of the said judgment
dated 22.2.2005, the respondents had
constituted a Committee which gave its
report dated 14.3.2005. The same was
forwarded by the Principal Secretary,
Transport Department, Government of
U.P. to the Managing Director of the
Corporation on 24.3.2005 for necessary
compliance. Thereafter the Corporation
issued the advertisement dated 31.3.2005
inviting applications from amongst the
contract drivers who were also to be
considered for appointment as drivers.
Aggrieved by the report of the Joint
Committee
and
the
terms
of
the
advertisement, the petitioners have filed
these writ petitions.

3. After a short counter affidavit had
been filed by the contesting respondent-
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
the
Corporation), to which a short rejoinder
affidavit had also been filed, the matter
was heard on merit on 25.4.200and
26.4.2005.
However,
thereafter
on
28.4.2005 Sri Sameer Sharma, learned
counsel appearing for the corporation,
raised a preliminary objection that the
petitioners have no locus standi to file this
writ petition, as in the pleadings they have
not stated as to how they are prejudiced
by the action of the respondents which is
under challenge in these writ petitions.

4. Although no such objection had
been raised by the corporation in its short
counter affidavits filed in some of these
writ petitions, but considering the fact that
it goes to the root of the matter, on the
request of the learned counsel for the
Corporation, this court agreed to first take
up the preliminary objection, on which
the parties were heard on 2.5.2005 and
3.5.2005.

5. The objection of the Corporation
is that in none of the writ petitions, have
the petitioners stated as to how they are
prejudiced by the report of the committee
or the advertisement issued, which are
both under challenge. Sri Sameer Sharma
has submitted that unless any cause of
action is disclosed in the pleadings, these
writ petitions, not being in the nature of
Public Interest Litigation, cannot be
entertained by this Court. In support of his
submissions he has relied on several
decisions and the relevant ones shall be
considered at the stage of deciding the
issue.

6.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners have placed reliance only on
the pleadings of writ petition no. 28388 of
2005 Aman Singh and others vs. State of
U.P. and others and writ petition no.
30437 of 2005 Ram Prasad vs. State of
U.P. and others. In paragraph 9 of writ
petition no. 28388 of 2005 it has been
stated that the petitioners had in their
earlier writ petition, annexed their driving
licenses,
School
leaving/Transfer
certificates for certification of their date
of birth etc. and thus the aforesaid
certificates which were already on record
in the previous writ petition were not
574 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
being annexed, and if this Court so
required, the same would be filed. In
paragraph 23 it has been stated that when
the petitioners initially joined as contract
drivers in the year 1998 they were 32
years of age and now a few of them have
become
overage
in
terms
of
the
advertisement dated 28.10.2004. It has
been
submitted
that
since
in
the
advertisement dated 31.3.2005, it has only
been stated that since in the advertisement
dated 31.3.2005, it has only been stated
that the applicants (contract drivers) ought
to have been within the prescribed age
limit
at
the
time
of
their
initial
recruitment, without specifying the age
limit for recruitment in the year 1998
when they were engaged, they could not
be sure as to whether they would be
eligible for making the application in
terms
of
the
advertisement
dated
31.3.2005. It has further been submitted
that by the advertisement dated 31.3.2005,
the requirement is to furnish a certificate
of
the
applicant
working
in
the
Corporation at present, i.e. on 31.3.2005,
whereas the Judgment dated 22.2.2005
had specified that their case was to be
considered as on the date of creation of
the posts, which was 25.10.2004. In this
regard in paragraphs 29 and 30 of the writ
petition it has been stated that since after
the advertisement dated 28.10.2004, for
certain
reasons,
almost
all
of
the
petitioners were restrained from working
with the Corporation, hence they could
not have obtained the certificate of'
working with the corporation at present'.
The petitioners thus claim that by such
action of the respondents in only allowing
those persons who continued to work on
the date of the advertisement and not on
the date of creation of posts, prejudice had
been caused to them. It was submitted that
in this light it was to be considered by this
Court as to whether any prejudice was
actually caused to the petitioners or not.

7. In paragraph 7 of writ petition no.
30437 of 2005 filed by Ram Prasad alone,
it has been stated that the said writ
petition
was
being
filed
in
the
representative capacity to espouse the
cause of contract drivers, for whom a
general direction had been issued by this
Court vide Judgment and order dated
22.2.2005. Earlier writ petition no.48316
of 2004 had been filed by Ram Prasad
alongwith several other persons.

8. The petitioners claim that since
the Corporation has grossly violated the
directions issued by this Court vide
judgment and order dated 22.2.2005, and
there are a large number of ambiguities in
the report of the Committee as well as the
subsequent
advertisement
of
the
Corporation dated 31.3.2005, which are
both under challenge in these writ
petitions, these writ petitions would be
maintainable and ought to be heard and
decided on merits, and the preliminary
objection raised by the respondentCorporation be rejected.

9. Sri Sharma, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the Corporation,
has relied upon the decision of the Apex
Court in the case of D. Nagaraj and
others vs. State of Karnataka and
others (1977) 2 SCC 148 wherein it has
been held that "it is also well established
that a person who is not aggrieved by the
discrimination complained of cannot
maintain a writ petition". There the Court
was dealing with the case of those who
had not applied for appointment as
Village Accountants in response to a
Notification for recruitment and did not
also possess the prescribed qualifications
2 All] Sri Aman Singh and others V. State of U.P. and others

 575
and in such circumstances it was held that
they were not the parties aggrieved and
could not complain or have a right to
maintain the writ petition.

In the case of Ashutosh Gupta vs.
State of Rajasthan and others (2002) 4
SCC 34 the Supreme Court has observed
that "Where the challenge is made to a
statutory provision being discriminatory,
allegations in writ petition must be
specific, clear and unambiguous. There
must be proper pleadings and averments
in the substantive petition before the
question of denial of equal protection of
infringement of fundamental right can be
decided". In the said case the Court was
dealing with the validity of certain rules
framed by the State Government and in
that context it was held that the burden of
proof of presumption of the unequal
treatment would lie on the person
complaining of such treatment as there is
always a presumption in favour of the
constitutionality of an enactment.

In
Rani
Laxmibai
Kshetriya
Gramin
Bank
vs.
Chand
Behari
Kapoor and others AIR 1998 SC 3104 it
was held that "It is too well settled that
the petitioner who approaches the Court
invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of
the Court under Article 226 must fully
aver and establish his rights flowing from
the bundle of facts thereby requiring
respondent to indicate its stand either by
denial or by positive assertions. But in the
absence of any averments in the writ
petition or even in the rejoinder affidavit
it is not permissible for a Court to arrive
at a conclusion on a factual position
merely on the basis of submissions made
in course of hearing."

In Bharat Singh vs. State of
Haryana AIR 1988 S.C. 2181 it has been
held that "In our opinion, when a point
which is ostensibly a point of law is
required to be substantiated by facts, the
party raising the point, if he is the writ
petitioner, must plead and prove such
facts by evidence which must appear from
the writ petition and if he is the
respondent, from the counter affidavit. If
the facts are not pleaded or the evidence
in support of such facts is not annexed to
the writ petition or to the counter
affidavit, as the case may be, the court
will not entertain the point."

10. In my view the ratio of the
aforesaid cases as relied upon by the
learned counsel for the Corporation are
distinguishable on facts and would not be
applicable to the present case. There can
be no doubt that the burden to prove his
case would lie on the person approaching
the Court. There should be sufficient
material available before the Court to see
whether the challenge to the action of the
respondents is there or not.

11. From a plain reading of the writ
petitions at hand, it cannot be said that
necessary facts relating to the cause of
action of the petitioner is not there. The
objection of the Corporation is that even
though such material may be there for
deciding the issues involved, but the
petitioners
have
not
specified
the
prejudice which has been caused to them
by the action of the respondents, and thus
these petitioners should be dismissed on
the preliminary objection itself.

12. In the case of Dwarka Nath vs.
Income Tax Officer, Special Circle D-
Ward, Kanpur and another AIR 1966
SC 81 while considering the powers of
576 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India it was held that
"This
Article
is
couched
in
comprehensive phraseology and it ex
facie confers a wide power on the High
Court to reach injustice wherever it is
found". It is well settled that the
jurisdiction of the High Court under
Article 226 is much wider than the
jurisdiction under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India because the High
Courts are required to exercise this
jurisdiction not only for the enforcement
of fundamental rights but also for the
enforcement of any legal right and there
are many rights conferred on the poor and
disadvantaged which are the creation of
statute and they need to be enforced as
urgently and vigorously as fundamental
rights, vide Bandhua Mukiti Morcha vs.
Union of India and others AIR 1984 SC
802.

13. In the case of Ghulam Qadir vs.
Special Tribunal & others (2002) 1
S.C.C. 33 the Supreme Court, while
dealing with the legal proposition of the
rights of a person to approach the High
Court
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India, held that "The
existence of the legal right of the
petitioner which is alleged to have been
violated is the foundation for invoking the
jurisdiction of the High Court under the
aforesaid article. The orthodox rule of
interpretation regarding the locus standi
of a person to reach the court has
undergone a sea change with the
development of constitutional law in our
country and the constitutional courts have
been adopting a liberal approach in
dealing with the cases or dislodging the
claim of a litigant merely on hyper
technical
grounds.
If
a
person
approaching the court can satisfy that the
impugned action is likely to adversely
affect his right which is shown to be
having
source
in
some
statutory
provision, the petition filed by such a
person cannot be rejected on the ground
of his not having the locus standi. On
other words, if the person is found to be
not merely a stranger having no righ
whatsoever to any post or property, he
cannot be non-suited on the ground of his
not having the locus standi."

14. In Kusum Ignots & Alloys Ltd.
vs. Union of India and another (2004) 6
SCC 254 the Supreme Court has held that
"Cause of action implies a right to sue.
The material facts which are imperative
for the suitor to allege and prove
constitute the cause of action. Cause of
action is not defined in any statute. It has,
however, been judicially interpreted inter
alia to mean that every fact which would
be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if
traversed, in order to support his right to
the judgment of the Court."

15. The Apex Court in the case of N.
Balaji vs. Virendra Singh and others
(2005) 1 UPLBEC 268 has held that "In
the
matter
of
applicability
of
the
procedural rigorous the Constitution
Bench of this Court in Sardar Amarjeet
Singh Kalra (Dead) by Lrs. And others v.
Pramod Gupta (Smt.) (Dead) by Lrs. And
others, (2003) 3 SCC 272, has observed
that laws of procedure are meant to
regulate effectively, assist and aid the
object of substantial and real justice and
not to foreclose even an adjudication on
the merits of substantial rights of citizen
under personal, property and other lays.
With the march and progress of law, the
new horizons explored and modalities
discerned and the fact that the procedural
laws must be liberally construed to really
2 All] Sri Aman Singh and others V. State of U.P. and others

 577
serve as handmaid, make it workable and
advance the ends of justice, technical
objections which tend to be stumbling
blocks to defeat and deny substantial and
effective justice should be strictly viewed
for being discouraged, except where the
mandate of law inevitably necessitates it.
It follows fro m the decision by the
Constitution Bench that the procedure
would not be used to discourage the
substantial and effective justice but would
be so construed as to advance the cause
of justice."

16. Thus the law on the subject is
clearly to the effect that the party
approaching this Court is entitled to
substantial
and
real
justice.
The
procedure, which is viewed as handmaid
of justice, should not hamper the ends of
justice. It should be liberally construed to
make it workable and advance the cause
of justice. The Courts, while dealing with
such issues, should take a positive and
constructive approach. It has to break the
shackles of technicalities and reach out to
the real issues and if the cause demands,
proceed to adjudicate the case on merits
instead of getting entangled in the hyper
technicalities of law.

17. Without making any observation
on the merits of the case (as only the
preliminary objection has been heard) in
the facts of this case, when the material
for deciding the case on merits is already
there on record, this Court would not like
to scuttle the hearing on merits of the case
merely on the technical objection raised
by the respondents. The grievance of the
petitioner with regard to the report of the
Joint
Committee
as
well
as
the
advertisement issued by the Corporation
is
already
there
in
the
pleadings.
Admittedly, the report which has been
submitted and the advertisement, which
has been issued, are with regard to the
contract drivers, a class of persons in
which all the petitioners fall. Thus, the
petitioners, being contract drivers, are the
persons who are affected by such action
of the corporation. It cannot be said that
the petitioners are strangers to the
proceedings or that they would not be
prejudiced or aggrieved if, after hearing
on merits, it is found that such action of
the corporation was unreasonable. Thus it
cannot be said that there is no cause of
action for entertaining these writ petitions.
Undoubtedly the petitioners have been
agitating their claim and had promptly
approached this Court in the earlier bunch
of writ petitions (leading one being writ
petition No.48316 of 2004) which was
decided by this Court on 22.2.2005.
Again
when
the
Corporation
has
proceeded to fill up the posts of drivers on
the
recommendations
of
the
Joint
Committee and has also issued the
advertisement; within a few days of its
issuance, the petitioners have yet again
promptly approached this Court by filing
these writ petitions. Thus, in my view,
substantial justice needs to be done in
their cases. For this, it would be necessary
or, if I may say so, it is the right of the
petitioners, to get the issues involved in
these writ petitions decided on merits,
after a complete hearing is given to the
parties.

18. The preliminary objection raised
by the respondent. Corporation is thus
rejected. The writ petitions will be heard
and decided on merits.
---------
578 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.03.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Restoration Application No.
2965 of 2005
In
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11279 of 1990

U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd., Deoria
and others

...Petitioner
Versus
Labour Court, Gorakhpur and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri H.S. Nigam
Sri R.D. Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri K.M. Misra
Sri Tarun Varma
Sri Shyam Narain

Code of Civil Procedure 1988-S-151
C.P.C.-Restoration
Application-Petition
dismissed
in
default
on
9.1.03application moved on 6.1.05-reason for
non
appearance
disclosed-prevented
from prosecuting the case due to strike
call-if a lawyer-holding vakalatnamaabstains from attending the Court on his
personal risk-speedy justice included in
Article
21-No
sufficient
and
cogent
reason disclosed-Application rejected.

Held: Para 9

The contention of the counsel for the
petitioner that the delay in moving the
restoration
application
was
not
intentional has no force as the clerk of
his office ought to have noted the orders
passed during the strike period. He could
have inspected the file even after the
strike was over. No sufficient cause and
cogent reasons have been given for
restoration of the writ petition. The
application for restoration has been
moved on 6.1.2005. It suffers from
laches due to callous attitude of the
petitioner.
Case law discussed:
1984 (2) SCC-556
1993 (3) SCC-256
1995 (3) SCC-19
1995 SCC (3) 619
1995 (1) SCC-732
1998 (8) SCC-624
199 (1) SCC-37
2003 (2) SCC-45
1992 (5) SCC-225
1998 (7) SCC-507
W.P.33778 of 97-decided on 10.10.97
1998 (1) UPLBC-587

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard counsel for the petitioner
and perused the record.

This is an application for restoration
of the writ petition, which was dismissed
by me for want of prosecution on
9.1.2003. The order dated 9.1.2003 is as
under:-

"The lawyers have gone on lightning
strike disturbing the court proceedings.
List has been revised. Since none appears
to press this writ petition the same is
dismissed for non-prosecution. Interim
order, if any, stands vacated."

2. The counsel for the petitioner
submits that he could not appear due to
strike of lawyers on 9.1.2003 and he had
no knowledge about the order dated
9.1.2003 till 3.1.2005 when he came to
Allahabad with regard to different cases
of the unit and made enquiry from the
Computer Section about the present case
and came to know that the writ petition
was dismissed for want of prosecution on
9.1.2003. He further submits that the