# State of U.P. & Ors v. Sita Ram

- **Citation:** (2022) 6 ILRA 949
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-18
- **Case number:** Appeal Defective No. 23 of 2019
- **Bench:** Rajesh Bindal, C.J. J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-ors-v-sita-ram-48690
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

(A) Service Law - Condonation of huge
delay - limitation to file appeal - 30 days
from date of order - in addition to time
spent in obtaining certified copy thereof -
Claim on account of impersonal machinery
and inherited bureaucratic methodology
of
making
several
notes
cannot
be
accepted
in
view
of
the
modern
technologies being used and available -
seeing
the
repeated
inaction
and
casualness in approach on the part of the
authorities in filing the appeals after a
huge delay - view had to be revisited.
(Para - 10,11)

Condonation of huge delay of more than two
years and seven months in filing appeal - on
account of bureaucratic set up and impersonal
machinery - Covid-19 pandemic - Single Judge
allowed prayer for change of date of birth at
the fag end of the career of respondentemploye . (Para -2 )

HELD:-No case made out for condonation of
huge delay of more than two years and seven
months
in
filing
appeal.
Application
for
condonation of delay rejected. Appeal barred by
limitation.(Para -13 )

Special Appeal Defective dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

6 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Sita Ram
949
as such we are of the opinion that such
dispute should be given quietus which shall
be not only in the interest of the warring
factions of the society but it shall also be in
the interest of the society of the college
being run, of the education of the students
as also the welfare of the teachers.

32. For all the aforesaid discussion
made above, we are of the opinion that the
instant appeal lacks merit. Resultantly, the
special appeal is, thus, dismissed.

33. The Deputy Registrar concerned
is directed to ensure compliance of the
directions issued by the learned Single
Judge in his order dated 28.04.2022 as
corrected by means of the order dated
06.05.2022 passed in Writ Petition No.4847
(M/S) of 2012 (New Number: Writ-C
No.1004847 of 2012) within the time
period specified for the said purpose in the
order passed by the learned Single Judge.

34. However, there will be no order as
to costs.
----------
(2022)06ILR A949
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Special Appeal (D) 155 of 2022

State of U.P. & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Sita Ram ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Chandan Kumar, Standing Counsel

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Harindra Prasad
(A) Service Law - Condonation of huge
delay - limitation to file appeal - 30 days
from date of order - in addition to time
spent in obtaining certified copy thereof -
Claim on account of impersonal machinery
and inherited bureaucratic methodology
of
making
several
notes
cannot
be
accepted
in
view
of
the
modern
technologies being used and available -
seeing
the
repeated
inaction
and
casualness in approach on the part of the
authorities in filing the appeals after a
huge delay - view had to be revisited.
(Para - 10,11)

Condonation of huge delay of more than two
years and seven months in filing appeal - on
account of bureaucratic set up and impersonal
machinery - Covid-19 pandemic - Single Judge
allowed prayer for change of date of birth at
the fag end of the career of respondentemploye . (Para -2 )

HELD:-No case made out for condonation of
huge delay of more than two years and seven
months
in
filing
appeal.
Application
for
condonation of delay rejected. Appeal barred by
limitation.(Para -13 )

Special Appeal Defective dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. B.C.C.L. & ors. Vs Shyam Kishore Singh,
(2020) 3 SCC 411

2. Postmaster General & ors. Vs Living Media
India Ltd. & anr., (2012) 3 SCC 563

3. St. of M.P. & ors. Vs Bherulal, (2020) 10 SCC
654

4. St. of U.P. & ors. Vs Harikesh Singh, Special
Appeal Defective No. 23 of 2019

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Bindal, C.J.
& Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. The present intra-Court appeal has
been filed by the State impugning the order
dated July 30, 2019. Along with the appeal
950 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appeal, an application has been filed
seeking condonation of delay in filing
thereof. The period for which the delay is
sought to be condoned is not mentioned in
the application. However, as calculated by
the Registry, it comes to 948 days, i.e.,
more than two years and seven months.

2.

earned
counsel
for
the
applicants/appellants, while trying to make
out a case for condonation of huge delay of
more than two years and seven months in
filing the appeal, referred to the affidavit
filed in support of the application seeking
condonation of delay. He submitted that it
was on account of bureaucratic set up and
impersonal machinery which resulted in
delay in filing the present appeal. One of
the reasons is also Covid-19 pandemic. The
submission is that the case otherwise is
meritorious. The learned Single Judge has
allowed the prayer for change of date of
birth at the fag end of the career of the
respondent-employee which is totally in
contravention of judgments of Hon'ble the
Supreme Court. Reliance is placed on the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Bharat Coking Coal Limited and others
Vs. Shyam Kishore Singh (2020) 3 SCC
411, wherein relying on the earlier
authorities on the issue, it was observed:

"9. This Court has consistently held
that the request for change of the date of
birth in the service records at the fag end of
service is not sustainable."

3. In view of above, it is submitted
that the present appeal being meritorious,
the delay in filing the appeal be condoned
and the appeal be allowed.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel
for the respondent submitted that the
applicants/appellants in the present appeal
cannot take shelter of Covid-19 pandemic
as the period of filing the appeal expired
much prior to the imposition of first
lockdown in March, 2020. The impugned
order was passed by learned Single Judge
on July 30, 2019. A perusal of the aforesaid
contents of the affidavit, filed in support of
the application seeking condonation of
delay, shows that the file was dealt with at
different levels as if there is no period
prescribed for filing the appeal and it would
be filed by the State at its pleasure.

5. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the paper-book.

6. Before the arguments of the parties
could be heard and dealt with, there being
huge delay in filing the present appeal the
application seeking condonation of delay is
required to be dealt with first.

7. The following table will show the dates
and events after passing of the order by this
Court and the action taken by the different
departments of the State till such time the
present appeal was filed:

Sl.
No.
Date
Event
1.
30.07.2019 Learned
Single
Judge
allowed the writ petition.
2.
28.08.2019 Petitioner
requested
Executive
Engineer,
Irrigation
Division,
Firozabad for compliance
of the order of learned
Single Judge.
3.
18.09.2019 Executive
Engineer,
Irrigation
Division,
Firozabad
sought
direction
from
Chief
Engineer, Department of
Irrigation
and
Water
6 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Sita Ram
951
Resources, U.P. Lucknow
for compliance of the
order passed by learned
Single Single Judge.
4.
04.10.2019 Chief
Engineer,
Department of Irrigation
and
Water
Resources,
U.P., Lucknow directed
the Executive Engineer,
Irrigation
Division,
Firozabad
for
seeking
legal opinion from the
office of Chief Standing
counsel,
High
Court,
Allahabad
for
filing
review application.
5.
15.11.2019 Chief
Engineer,
Department of Irrigation
and
Water
Resources,
U.P.,
Lucknow
sent
reminder to Executive
Engineer,
Irrigation
Division, Firozabad for
seeking
legal
opinion
from
Chief
Standing
Counsel,
High
Court,
Allahabad
for
filing
review application.
6.
18.12.2019 Executive
Engineer,
Irrigation
Division,
Firozabad
sought
the
legal
opinion
in
the
matter
from
Chief
Standing Counsel, High
Court, Allahabad.
7.
23.12.2019 Executive
Engineer,
Irrigation
Division,
Firozabad informed Chief
Engineer, Department of
Irrigation
and
Water
Resources,
U.P.,
Lucknow
that
legal
opinion has been sought
from
Chief
Standing
Counsel for filing the
special appeal.
8.
08.01.2020 Executive
Engineer,
Irrigation
Division,
Firozabad
submitted
narrative (facts of the
case) and legal opinion to
the
office
of
Superintending Engineer,
Drainage
Division,
Aligarh requesting for
approval of narrative.
9.
10.01.2020 Superintending Engineer,
Drainage
Division,
Aligarh requested Chief
Engineer
(Ganga)
Department of Irrigation
and
Water
Resources,
U.P., Meerut for seeking
approval for filing special
appeal in the matter.
10. 10.01.2020 The
Chief
Engineer
(Ganga) Department of
Irrigation
and
Water
Resources, U.P., Meerut
sought permission from
Chief Engineer (West),
Stage-1, Department of
Irrigation
and
Water
Resources, U.P., Meerut
for filing special appeal
in the matter.
11. 11.01.2020 The
Chief
Engineer
(West),
Stage-1,
Department of Irrigation
and
Water
Resources,
U.P. Meerut requested
Chief
Engineer
(Complaint), Department
of Irrigation and Water
Resources, U.P. Lucknow
for filing special appeal
952 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in the matter.
12. 25.02.2020 Chief Engineer (Legal
Cell),
Department
of
Irrigation
and
Water
Resources, U.P. sought
permission from Under
Secretary, Department of
Irrigation
and
Water
Resources,
Anubhag-7,
U.P. Shasan, Lucknow
for filing the special
appeal in the matter.
13. 17.07.2020 The
Under
Secretary,
Department of Irrigation
and
Water
Resources,
Anubhag-7, U.P. Shasan,
Lucknow
requested
Engineer-in-Chief, Head
of
Department,
Department of Irrigation
and
Water
Resources,
U.P., Lucknow for filing
intra-Court appeal in the
matter.
14. 30.07.2020 Executive
Engineer,
Irrigation
Division,
Firozabad sought legal
opinion
from
District
Government
Counsel,
Firozabad in the matter.
15. 25.08.2020 Chief Engineer (Ganga),
Department of Irrigation
and
Water
Resources,
U.P.,
Meerut
directed
Executive
Engineer,
Irrigation
Division,
Firozabad
for
proper
examination of all points
given in the opinion of
Chief Standing Counsel.
16. 02.09.2020 Executive
Engineer,
Irrigation
Division,
Firozabad submitted all
papers/documents to the
office of Chief Engineer
(Ganga), Department of
Irrigation
and
Water
Resources, U.P., Meerut
for seeking permission
for
filing
intra-Court
appeal.
17. 22.01.2021 Chief Engineer, Karmik
asked
Executive
Engineer, Department of
Irrigation, Firozabad for
further proceedings of the
matter.
18. 23.01.2021 Executive
Engineer,
Irrigation
Division,
Firozabad
requested
Chief
Engineer,
Department of Irrigation
and
Water
Resources,
U.P., Lucknow to seek
the permission from the
State for filing special
appeal in the matter.
19. 25.01.2021 Chief Engineer, Ganga,
Department of Irrigation
and
Water
Resources,
U.P.,
Meerut
directed
Executive
Engineer,
Irrigation
Division,
Firozabad to provide all
information
about
the
case.
20. 16.06.2021 Chief Engineer, Karmik
vide reminder directed
Executive
Engineer,
Department of Irrigation,
Firozabad
for
further
proceedings of the matter.
21. 18.06.2021 Executive
Engineer,
Irrigation
Division,
6 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Sita Ram
953
Firozabad
requested
Chief
Engineer,
Department of Irrigation
and
Water
Resources,
U.P.
Lucknow
for
seeking permission for
filing the special appeal
in the matter.
22. 12.01.2022 Executive
Engineer,
Irrigation
Division,
Firozabad
requested
Chief Engineer (Ganga),
Department of Irrigation
and
Water
Resources,
U.P., Meerut for seeking
permission from the State
for filing special appeal
in the matter.
23. 31.01.2022 Chief
Engineer
(Coordinate Legal Cell)
Department of Irrigation
and
Water
Resources,
U.P.
requested
Under
Secretary, Department of
Irrigation
and
Water
Resources,
Anubhag-7,
U.P. Shasan, Lucknow
for granting permission to
file intra Court appeal in
the matter.
24. 28.03.2022 Permission
for
filing
intra-Court appeal was
granted
and
in
furtherance
thereof
Special
Secretary
and
Additional
Legal
Remembrancer,
Uttar
Pradesh,
Lucknow
requested Chief Standing
Counsel,
High
Court,
Allahabad for filing intraCourt
appeal
in
the
matter.
25. 04.04.2022 Under
Secretary,
Department of Irrigation
and
Water
Resources,
Anubhag-7, U.P. Shasan,
Lucknow
informed
Engineer-In-Chief, Head
of
Department,
Department of Irrigation
and
Water
Resources,
U.P.
Lucknow
about
permission letter dated
28.03.2022.
26. 08.04.2022 The
office
of
Chief
Standing Counsel allotted
the file to Sri Chandan
Kumar,
Standing
Counsel,
High
Court,
Allahabad, who prepared
the appeal.
27. 09.05.2022 After being prepared, the
special
appeal
was
presented.

8. A perusal of the aforesaid contents
of the affidavit show that after the writ
petition was allowed by learned Single
Judge on July 30, 2019, for a period of
about five months, i.e., upto December 23,
2019, the matter remained pending for
seeking legal opinion as to whether order
passed by learned Single Judge is required
to be challenged or complied with.
Thereafter, till March 28, 2022 the matter
remained pending for approval by the
competent authority for permission to file
appeal against order passed by learned
Single Judge. After the permission to file
intra-Court appeal was granted, the Special
Secretary
and
Additional
Legal
Remembrancer, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow
requested Chief Standing Counsel, High
Court, Allahabad for filing intra-Court
appeal in the matter, who in turn allotted
the file to Sri Chandan Kumar, Standing
954 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel, High Court, Allahabad on April 8,
2022, who prepared the appeal and
thereafter the same was presented on May
9, 2022, i.e., after expiry of the period of
limitation even if counted from the date the
permission to file the appeal was granted.

9. The contents of the affidavit, which
have been summarized above, show that
officers of the department at different
levels have not been vigilant enough to
pursue the case in hand. Where the
limitation to file the appeal is merely 30
days from the date of order in addition to
the time spent in obtaining the certified
copy thereof, firstly the matter remained
pending only for seeking opinion by the
Chief Standing Counsel as to whether
review petition should be filed. It is
apparent from the record that the decision
was taken by the State Government on
March 28, 2022. However, the present
appeal was presented on May 9, 2022, i.e.,
42 days thereafter.

10. The legal issue as to how an
application filed by the State seeking
condonation of delay has to be dealt with
has invited attention of the Courts on a
number of occasions. Initially, the view
was that the State Machinery being
impersonal, the Courts should be liberal in
granting condonation of delay, however,
seeing the repeated inaction and casualness
in approach on the part of the authorities in
filing the appeals after a huge delay, the
view had to be revisited.

11. In Postmaster General and
Others Vs. Living Media India Limited
and Another, (2012) 3 SCC 563 considering
the facts of that case, which were similar to
the case in hand, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
opined that the claim on account of
impersonal
machinery
and
inherited
bureaucratic methodology of making several
notes cannot be accepted in view of the
modern
technologies
being
used
and
available. The aforesaid observation was
made about a decade back and there is lot of
technological advancements thereafter. But
apparently, the matters here are being dealt
with in the old fashion. Separate period of
limitation has not been provided for filing
appeals by the State. The relevant paragraphs
from the aforesaid judgment are extracted
below:-

"27. It is not in dispute that the person(s)
concerned were well aware or conversant
with the issues involved including the
prescribed period of limitation for taking up
the matter by way of filing a special leave
petition in this Court. They cannot claim that
they have a separate period of limitation
when the Department was possessed with
competent persons familiar with court
proceedings. In the absence of plausible and
acceptable explanation, we are posing a
question why the delay is to be condoned
mechanically
merely
because
the
Government or a wing of the Government is
a party before us.

28. Though we are conscious of the fact
that in a matter of condonation of delay when
there was no gross negligence or deliberate
inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal
concession has to be adopted to advance
substantial justice, we are of the view that in
the facts and circumstances, the Department
cannot take advantage of various earlier
decisions.
The
claim
on
account
of
impersonal
machinery
and
inherited
bureaucratic methodology of making several
notes cannot be accepted in view of the
modern
technologies
being
used
and
available. The law of limitation undoubtedly
binds everybody, including the Government.

29. In our view, it is the right time to
inform all the government bodies, their
6 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Sita Ram
955
agencies and instrumentalities that unless
they have reasonable and acceptable
explanation for the delay and there was
bona fide effort, there is no need to accept
the usual explanation that the file was kept
pending for several months/years due to
considerable degree of procedural red tape
in
the
process.
The
government
departments are under a special obligation
to ensure that they perform their duties with
diligence and commitment. Condonation of
delay is an exception and should not be
used as an anticipated benefit for the
government departments. The law shelters
everyone under the same light and should
not be swirled for the benefit of a few.

30. Considering the fact that there was
no proper explanation offered by the
Department
for
the
delay
except
mentioning of various dates, according to
us, the Department has miserably failed to
give any acceptable and cogent reasons
sufficient to condone such a huge delay.
Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be
dismissed on the ground of delay."

12. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and
Others Vs. Bherulal (2020) 10 SCC 654
again considered the application filed by
the State seeking condonation of delay in
filing the Special Leave Petition. Similar
arguments were made in support of the
application, however, the same were
rejected. Such type of cases were termed as
"certificate cases". The application seeking
condonation of delay was dismissed subject
to costs of ₹ 25,000/-. Relevant paras nos. 4
to 8 thereof are extracted below:-

"4. A reading of the aforesaid
application shows that the reason for such
an inordinate delay is stated to be only "due
to unavailability of the documents and the
process of arranging the documents". In
para 4, a reference has been made to
"bureaucratic
process
works,
it
is
inadvertent that delay occurs".

5. A preposterous proposition is
sought to be propounded that if there is
some merit in the case, the period of delay
is to be given a go-by. If a case is good on
merits, it will succeed in any case. It is
really a bar of limitation which can even
shut out good cases. This does not, of
course, take away the jurisdiction of the
Court in an appropriate case to condone the
delay.

6. We are also of the view that the
aforesaid approach is being adopted in
what we have categorised earlier as
"certificate cases". The object appears to be
to obtain a certificate of dismissal from the
Supreme Court to put a quietus to the issue
and thus, say that nothing could be done
because the highest Court has dismissed the
appeal. It is to complete this formality and
save the skin of officers who may be at
default that such a process is followed. We
have on earlier occasions also strongly
deprecated such a practice and process.
There seems to be no improvement. The
purpose of coming to this Court is not to
obtain
such
certificates
and
if
the
Government suffers losses, it is time when
the officer concerned responsible for the
same bears the consequences. The irony is
that in none of the cases any action is taken
against the officers, who sit on the files and
do nothing. It is presumed that this Court
will condone the delay and even in making
submissions, straightaway the counsel
appear to address on merits without
referring even to the aspect of limitation as
happened in this case till we pointed out to
the counsel that he must first address us on
the question of limitation.

7. We are thus, constrained to send a
signal and we propose to do in all matters
today, where there are such inordinate
delays that the Government or State
956 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
authorities coming before us must pay for
wastage of judicial time which has its own
value. Such costs can be recovered from
the officers responsible.

8. Looking to the period of delay and
the casual manner in which the application
has
been
worded,
we
consider
it
appropriate to impose costs on the
petitioner State of Rs 25,000 (Rupees
twenty-five thousand) to be deposited with
the Mediation and Conciliation Project
Committee. The amount be deposited in
four weeks. The amount be recovered from
the officers responsible for the delay in
filing the special leave petition and a
certificate of recovery of the said amount
be also filed in this Court within the said
period of time."

13. For the reasons mentioned above,
in our opinion no case is made out for
condonation of huge delay of more than
two years and seven months in filing the
present appeal. Hence, the application for
condonation of delay is rejected and the
appeal, accordingly, being barred by
limitation is also dismissed.

14. Similar issue came up for
consideration before a Division Bench of
this Court in Special Appeal Defective
No. 23 of 2019 (State of U.P. and others
vs. Harikesh Singh) (Lucknow Bench)
where certain directions were issued to
streamline the court cases and check
delays in filing appeals etc. Relevant para
17 thereof is extracted below :-

"17. We also find it appropriate to
record here that from the affidavit filed in
support
of
the
application
seeking
condonation of delay, it is evident that
the system being followed after decision
of cases needs to be re-visited. Office of
Advocate General should ensure that after
every case is decided by the Court,
certified copy thereof should be applied
for, immediately and not on the request
made by the Department. Immediately,
on receipt of the copy of the order, it
should be sent to the Department
concerned along with the opinion as to
whether the case is fit for filing an appeal
or not alongwith suggested grounds,
instead of waiting for a letter from the
concerned Department seeking opinion.
Further, the letter should specifically
state as to the date on which the
limitation to file an appeal or availing
any remedy against the order expires. It
has to be ensured that opinion in the case
alongwith copy of the order reaches the
concerned department well before expiry
of time for filing appeal and that date
should be specifically mentioned. Benefit
should
be
taken
of
technological
advancements and the process could be
online as well."

15. However, on account of inaction
by the authorities at different levels in the
State, the State exchequer should not be
made to suffer as a result of an order passed
by learned Single Judge of this Court which
is claimed to be contrary to law laid down
by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Bharat
Coking Coal Limited's case (supra), in
our view an inquiry is required to be
conducted
by
Secretary,
Irrigation
Department to fix the responsibility of the
officer(s)/official(s) concerned, who have
slept over the file as a result of which huge
delay occurred in filing the present appeal.
The amount which is required to be paid to
the respondent on account of change in date
of birth, which according to the State was
not permissible to him as he could not get
the date of birth changed at the fag end of
his career, be recovered from him/them
after affording due opportunity of hearing.
6 All. Mritunjay Kumar Nand Vs. Union of India & Ors.
957
Such an amount shall not be reimbursed by
the State to those officer(s)/official(s) under
any circumstance.

16. This Court is constrained to pass
such order for the reason that repeatedly in
the Court the appeals are being filed by the
State after huge delay as if no one is
responsible for taking care of litigation
which otherwise also results in causing
huge loss to the State exchequer besides
wasting precious time of the Court which is
already flooded with the cases and majority
of them are on account of inaction or
wrong action by the State.

17. Copy of this order shall be sent to
the Chief Secretary of the State of Uttar
Pradesh and Secretary, Department of
Irrigation for information and compliance.
----------
(2022)06ILR A957
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Writ-A No. 18154 of 2021

Mritunjay Kumar Nand ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, Sri Rajesh Kumar
Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Vinay Kumar Singh

(A) Service Law - Constitution of India -
Court of Equity - the Armed Forces
Tribunal Act, 2007 - Section 3(o),14,15 -
When a person approaches a Court of
Equity in exercise of its extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution - he should approach the
Court not only with clean hands but also
with clean mind, clean heart and clean
objective - "Jure Naturae Aequum Est
Neminem cum Alterius Detrimento Et
Injuria Fieri Locupletiorem" - it is a law
of nature that one should not be
enriched by the loss or injury to another
-
Filing
of
false
affidavit
and
concealment of material facts amounts
to interference in the administration of
justice and as such is criminal contempt
of Court. (Para -23,30 )

Petitioner made false averment - no other
efficacious alternative remedy except to
invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction
before this Court - Petitioner misrepresented
Court - by means of writ petition - to obtain
fruitful order . (Para - 6,22)

(B)
Extraordinary
Jurisdiction
-
Constitution of India ,1950 - Article 226
- jurisdiction depends on the person or
authority passing the order being within
those territories - residence or location
of the person affected can have no
relevance on the question of the High
Court's jurisdiction. (Para - 9)

HELD:-Petitioner not approached Court with clean
hands by making false averments . Enclosed
incomplete copy of advertisement deliberately
only in order to obtain a fruitful order. Petition
liable to be dismissed on ground of availability of
statutory alternative remedy being available to
petitioner. (Para -17,18,22)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Rajendra Kumar Mishra Vs U.O.I., 2004 0
Supreme (All) 1841

2. Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta Vs
Bombay Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1995 SC 577

3. O.N.G.C. Vs Uptal Kumar Basu, (1994) 4 SCC 711

4. U.O.I. Vs Adani Exports Ltd. & anr. , AIR
2002 SC 126