# State of U.P. and another v. Sri S.M. Sagar and another

- **Citation:** (2011) 3 ILRA 1105
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-09-03
- **Case number:** Civil Misc Writ Petition No. 33829 of 1997
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-and-another-v-sri-s-m-sagar-and-another-42050
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India Article 226-practice
of filling fribulus petitions-State Law
Officer
performing
an
mechanical
consideration by permitting to file Writ
Petition-which
resulted
unnecessary
burden upon High Court-engagement of
large strength of State Law Officers and
Special Counsel-public funds can not be
allowed to misused.

Held: Para 9

Such a huge team of Law Officers is
headed by learned Advocate General.
Monthly revenue towards fees of this
magnitude of State Law Officers, only in
the High Court is quite heavy. This Court
have experienced that not only this but
almost in a routine manner, State is also
engaging several private counsels as
Special Counsel, paying them a huge
amount. With this quantum of assistance
of legal brains, still the Government, if
not
able
to
control
frivolous
and
vexatious cases, it is a matter, not only
of serious concern, but condemnation.
There is something basically wrong
which needs be analysed and rectified at
the earliest. The State cannot forget that
being custodian of public funds which
belong to tax payers (people of this
1106 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
State), it cannot plunder with it in such
reckless
and
negligent
manner.
Everybody has to be accountable for
spending even a single shell from public
funds. Anybody responsible for wastage
must be required to explain and bear it.
Public funds cannot be allowed to be
thrown and misused in such a manner.
Case law discussed:
Writ Petition No. 474 (SB) of 2011 (State of
U.P and another Vs. Brij Bhushan Sharma);
Writ Petition No. 473 (SB) of 2011 (State of
U.P through Principal Secretary Appointment
Deparmtnet Vs. Vishnu Swarup Mishra and
another), decided on 17.03.2011

## Text

3 All State of U.P.and another V. Sri S.M. Sagar and another
1105
writ petition it has been mentioned that
pattas were granted in July, 1959. In
grounds of Revision filed before the
Additional Commissioner it was stated
that pattas were granted in 1957.
Revision was dismissed on 24.6.2003.
However, one revision i.e. revision
no.197 of 1998-99 filed by one of the
allottees i.e. Smt. Ram Rati against the
same order of the D.M. was allowed by
Additional
Commissioner,
Administration,
Chitrakoot
Dham,
Mandal Banda on 22.9.1999 copy of
which is Annexure-5 to the writ
petition. In the said order it was held
that complaint was filed beyond time.

5. What has been done in the
instant case is pure massacre of justice.
Allotment has been cancelled in the
proceedings initiated after thirty five to
forty
years.
There
is
no
such
requirement that after allotment neither
the
allottee
nor
his
subsequent
generations
can
shift
his
(their)
residence to another village and if they
do so allotment would be liable to be
cancelled.

6. Writ petition is accordingly
allowed. Impugned orders are set aside.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED:ALLAHABAD 03.09.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL,J.

Civil Misc Writ Petition No. 33829 of 1997

State of U.P. and another
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Sri S.M. Sagar and another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
S.C.

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India Article 226-practice
of filling fribulus petitions-State Law
Officer
performing
an
mechanical
consideration by permitting to file Writ
Petition-which
resulted
unnecessary
burden upon High Court-engagement of
large strength of State Law Officers and
Special Counsel-public funds can not be
allowed to misused.

Held: Para 9

Such a huge team of Law Officers is
headed by learned Advocate General.
Monthly revenue towards fees of this
magnitude of State Law Officers, only in
the High Court is quite heavy. This Court
have experienced that not only this but
almost in a routine manner, State is also
engaging several private counsels as
Special Counsel, paying them a huge
amount. With this quantum of assistance
of legal brains, still the Government, if
not
able
to
control
frivolous
and
vexatious cases, it is a matter, not only
of serious concern, but condemnation.
There is something basically wrong
which needs be analysed and rectified at
the earliest. The State cannot forget that
being custodian of public funds which
belong to tax payers (people of this
1106 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
State), it cannot plunder with it in such
reckless
and
negligent
manner.
Everybody has to be accountable for
spending even a single shell from public
funds. Anybody responsible for wastage
must be required to explain and bear it.
Public funds cannot be allowed to be
thrown and misused in such a manner.
Case law discussed:
Writ Petition No. 474 (SB) of 2011 (State of
U.P and another Vs. Brij Bhushan Sharma);
Writ Petition No. 473 (SB) of 2011 (State of
U.P through Principal Secretary Appointment
Deparmtnet Vs. Vishnu Swarup Mishra and
another), decided on 17.03.2011

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. )

1. The order impugned in the writ
petition is dated 4th October, 1994 passed
by District Judge, Agra. While allowing
the appeal and remanding the matter to the
authority below, District Judge directed
that the authority shall have a glance of
Supreme Court judgment and make it a
part of record and thereafter pass order in
the light of directions given by the Apex
Court.

2. This Court really failed to
understand what was the occasion for the
petitioners to file the present writ petition
instead of obtaining copy of the order of
Supreme Court, which they claim to have
been passed by it. The learned Standing
Counsel in fact could not explain any
reason or justification in filing this case.

3. Faced with these circumstances, I
intend to place on record my deep
dissatisfaction in the manner, the officials
in Law Department are functioning. Why
this case was advised to be filed must have
been scrutinised by Law Department. It
appears
they
have
passed
order
mechanically. Error of judgment can be
excused but surrender or non-application
of mind cannot. The Judicial Officers are
sent on deputation to the Law Department
of Government with an objective that they
constitute an independent cadre, hence
without being influenced by executive,
shall advise it impartially, objectively and
fairly. If this does not happen, the very
purpose in sending Judicial Officers on
deputation with Government will frustrate.
On the one hand from regular work these
officers are taken out and sent on
deputation to work like a Consultant but if
their advise and opinion is not independent
and impartial, it shall loose its gravity and
frustrate the purpose. The officials in the
Law Department, therefore, have to work
with great caution, care and independence.

4. It is a matter of common
knowledge that before the superior courts,
like High Court and Supreme Court, State
(Provincial or Central, as the case may be)
is the biggest litigant. In fact in writ
jurisdiction, almost in all the cases, State,
in one or other manner, is a party.

5. This Court is presently reeling
under huge pendency of more than 9.5 lacs
cases (more than 7 lacs at Allahabad and
more
than
2.5
lacs
at
Lucknow).
Innumerable
seminars,
conferences,
meetings, discussions etc. are being held at
every level to find out ways and means for
expeditious disposal of matters so that
access to justice should be quicker and
prompt to the people. All out attempt is
being made for quick justice since justice
delayed is justice denied. We are trying our
best so that litigating people should get
decision/adjudication of their rights within
a reasonable time. To achieve this goal,
role of Executive cannot be ignored. On
the contrary, being one of the biggest
litigant, the Executive has all the more
responsibility to behave in a reasonable
3 All State of U.P.and another V. Sri S.M. Sagar and another
1107
manner which is consistent with law so
that occasion to approach Courts for
protection of rights by people may be
minimised.

6. Under Article 226 of the
Constitution, writ petitions are mostly filed
when the Executive behave arbitrarily,
oppressively and in defiance of statutes,
Constitutional and otherwise. When a
common man comes to Court against such
action of Executive, it cannot be said that
he is unnecessarily burdening the system
of administration of justice. The situation,
however would be much different when a
Court of law has given a verdict. Once
such a decision is taken, unless a glaring
legal error or otherwise travesty of justice
has resulted from such a decision, atleast
the State must be slow in continuing to
engage in further litigation by filing a writ
petition in the High Court under Article
226 and to take up the matter further.

7. I am not suggesting that the
judgment of subordinate Courts should not
be challenged at all but my endeavour is to
stress upon a more serious scrutiny at the
level of department itself, whether there is
such a glaring error in the judgment so as
to take up the matter further or not. Most
of the departments of Government have
their own legal experts and consultants. At
the Secretariat level a full fledged cadre of
such
Experts
is
available
in
Law
Department. I am told that presently the
office
of
Legal
Remembrancer
and
Secretary, Law, includes more than two
dozens of Judicial Officers at the level of
Deputy Legal Remembrancer, Joint Legal
Remembrancer
and
Additional
Legal
Remembrancer
headed
by
a
Legal
Remembrancer. They are the officers
belong to Judicial Service of State,
whereof senior posts like Joint Legal
Remembrancer,
Additional
Legal
Remembrancer and Legal Remembrancer
are manned by members of Higher Judicial
Service. Heavy responsibility lie upon
these officers also to analyse the judgments
in the context of facts, statutory provisions
and decisions of High Courts and Supreme
Court on the subject and thereafter to find
out whether there is any such glaring error
which justify further litigation in High
Court or not. The approach should not be
one to grant approval automatically and
mechanically. There must be and there has
to be a serious application of mind at the
level of authorities who are responsible to
tender legal opinion to take up the matters
further.

8. I may point out at this stage that in
case of any doubt or clarity on the subject,
the officers of Government including those
from Law Department can also seek
opinion from Law Officers of State who
represent them in High Court including the
learned Advocate General and Additional
Advocate Generals. It would not be out of
place to mention that number of State Law
Officers empanelled by State in the High
Court, i.e., at Lucknow and Allahabad
consists of more than a few hundreds
Advocates.

9. Such a huge team of Law Officers
is headed by learned Advocate General.
Monthly revenue towards fees of this
magnitude of State Law Officers, only in
the High Court is quite heavy. This Court
have experienced that not only this but
almost in a routine manner, State is also
engaging several private counsels as
Special Counsel, paying them a huge
amount. With this quantum of assistance of
legal brains, still the Government, if not
able to control frivolous and vexatious
cases, it is a matter, not only of serious
1108 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
concern, but condemnation. There is
something basically wrong which needs be
analysed and rectified at the earliest. The
State cannot forget that being custodian of
public funds which belong to tax payers
(people of this State), it cannot plunder
with it in such reckless and negligent
manner. Everybody has to be accountable
for spending even a single shell from
public funds. Anybody responsible for
wastage must be required to explain and
bear it. Public funds cannot be allowed to
be thrown and misused in such a manner.

10. Time and again, the Apex Court
and this Court have repeatedly said that
State should refrain from filing frivolous
petitions, wasting precious time of Court
so that other substantial matters may be
taken up and decided.

11. Recently in Writ Petition No.
474 (SB) of 2011 (State of U.P and
another Vs. Brij Bhushan Sharma),
decided on 17.03.2011, a Division Bench,
has deprecated such practice of State of
filing frivolous writ petitions :

"We deprecate such practice on the
part of the State. . . ."

12. In another matter, i.e., Writ
Petition No. 473 (SB) of 2011 (State of
U.P
through
Principal
Secretary
Appointment Deparmtnet Vs. Vishnu
Swarup Mishra and another), decided on
17.03.2011 while dismissing writ petition,
the Court said:

"We direct the Chief Secretary of
State to formulate a policy in the matter of
filing such petitions which are causing
unnecessary burden for disposal, on this
Court."

13. In view of the above, this writ
petition
is
dismissed
with
cost
of
Rs.10,000/- against the petitioners.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.09.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN,J.
THE HON'BLE BHARATI SAPRU,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45362 of 2011

Sardar Javed Khan

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shashi Nandan
Sri Udayan Nandan
Sri Prem Chand

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.G. Hasnain(A.A.G.)
Sri Syed Fahim Ahmed
Sri Anurag Kumar
Sri Manoj Mishra
C.S.C.

U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916-Section
48(2)-cessation of Administrative and
Financial Power of Chairman Nagar
Palika-on report submitted by District
Magistrate-subjective
satisfaction
recorded by the Government can not be
without
material-nor
faulty
mean
because of elapsed of one and half years
time-held order impugned warrant no
interference.

Held: Para 32

In the present case, when the State
Government has recorded its objective
satisfaction that the charges are not
groundless and the President is primafacie guilty of the charges, it cannot be
said that the cessation of financial and
administrative powers of the petitioner