# Sunil Kumar Srivastava and another v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2007) 3 ILRA 700
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2007-07-06
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2174 of 1997
- **Bench:** Rakesh Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sunil-kumar-srivastava-and-another-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41091
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Sri C.K. Parekh

U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Sewa Niymawali
1962 readwith U.P. Nagar Mahapalika
Service (Designations Scale
of Pay,
Qualifications,
Conveyance
Allowance
and Method of Recruitment) Order 1963Section-106
(2),
109-Termination
of
Apprentice
vaccinator-appointment
made without following the procedurebeing nor or relative of ex-employee of
Mahapalika-by
the
authority
not
competent to appoint-continuation in
service on the strength of interim order
passed
by
Court-termination-heldproper.

Held: Para 24

It
is
apparent
that
the
power
of
appointment at the relevant time vested
in
the
State
Government
and
the
petitioners
could
not
have
been
appointed
by
the
Nagar
Swasthaya
Adhikari under Section 107 (5) of the
Adhiniyam since the post of Vaccinator
was carrying initial salary of Rs. 315/- in
1984
and
Rs.325/-
in

## Text

700 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
copy of this judgment. Govt. Appeal
Dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.07.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2174 of 1997

Sunil Kumar Srivastava and another

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

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Sharad Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri C.K. Parekh

U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Sewa Niymawali
1962 readwith U.P. Nagar Mahapalika
Service (Designations Scale
of Pay,
Qualifications,
Conveyance
Allowance
and Method of Recruitment) Order 1963Section-106
(2),
109-Termination
of
Apprentice
vaccinator-appointment
made without following the procedurebeing nor or relative of ex-employee of
Mahapalika-by
the
authority
not
competent to appoint-continuation in
service on the strength of interim order
passed
by
Court-termination-heldproper.

Held: Para 24

It
is
apparent
that
the
power
of
appointment at the relevant time vested
in
the
State
Government
and
the
petitioners
could
not
have
been
appointed
by
the
Nagar
Swasthaya
Adhikari under Section 107 (5) of the
Adhiniyam since the post of Vaccinator
was carrying initial salary of Rs. 315/- in
1984
and
Rs.325/-
in
1988.
Their
appointment was therefore not only in
contravention of the Adhiniyam but also
of the G.O. dated 30.12.1981. The
selection/appointment of the petitioners
was also not in conformity with the
statutory powers under the U.P. Nagar
Mahapalika Sewa Niyamawali, 1962 read
with
Clause
5
of
the
U.P.
Nagar
Mahapalika Service (Designations, Scales
of
Pay,
Qualifications,
Conveyance
Allowances and Method of Recruitment)
Order, 1963, Section 106 (2) and Section
109 of the Adhiniyam. Options had been
sought from the old employees of the
Nagar Nigam for absorption in the new
cadre of the scheme but the petitioners
did
not
join
under
the
scheme
formulated by the State Government.
The Nagar Nigam did not have any
power to create the post and in the
circumstances the petitioners had no
legal right to be appointed on a post
which did not exist.
Case law discussed:
1994 (2) ACJ-781 (DB)
1996 (2) AWC-927 (DB)
1995 (2) LBESR-752 (DB)
1996 (1) LBESR-677
2006 (4) SCC-1
2007 (1) SCC-577

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

1. Heard Sri Sharad Kumar
Srivastava for the petitioners and Sri C.
K. Parekh for the respondents.

2. By means of this writ petition the
petitioners have prayed for a writ of
certiorari
quashing
the
order
dated
6.1.1997 passed by the Up Nagar
Adhikari,
Nagar
Nigam,
Varanasi,
respondent no. 4 besides a writ of
mandamus commanding the respondents
to allow them to work upon their
respective posts and to pay their salary
regularly month to month.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are
that petitioner no. 1 was appointed as Paid
Apprentice Vaccinator on 18.12.1984 for
3 All] Sunil Kumar Srivastava and another V. State of U.P. and others
701
three months which was extended twice
and thereafter he was appointed on ad-hoc
basis w.e.f. 3.10.1985 with the approval
of
the
Administrator.
One
of
the
conditions of his appointment was that his
services may be terminated at any time
without prior notice. Thereafter on the
basis of recommendations of Selection
Committee he was promoted on the post
of Vaccinator on ad-hoc basis w.e.f.
24.3.1988.

4. Petitioner no. 2 was appointed as
Paid Apprentice Vaccinator on 24.3.1988
by the District Health Officer, Nagar
Nigam, Varanasi on ad-hoc basis on the
basis of recommendations of selection
committee
constituted
by
the
Administrator. He was promoted to the
post
of
Vaccinator
by
order-dated
23.5.1988 and in his place one Shashi
Kant Sharma was appointed as Paid
Apprentice Vaccinator.

5. The petitioners were terminated
from service vide order dated 6.1.1997 in
pursuance of the order of Mukhya Nagar
Adhikari
dated 28.12.1996 allegedly
without prior notice and opportunity of
hearing.

6. The grievance of the petitioners,
inter alia, is that despite being appointed
against substantive post of Vaccinator
they have been terminated without any
notice or affording any opportunity and
that the order has been passed by an
authority below in rank of the appointing
authority.

While granting time to file counter
affidavit and rejoinder affidavit the Court
granted interim order dated 3.2.1997
staying the operation of the impugned
order dated 6.1.1997.
7. In para 3 and 4 of the counter
affidavit filed by Nagar Nigam, Varanasi
it is averred that Nagar Nigam/Nagar
Mahapalika does not act independently in
the matter of creation or abolition of posts
and for payment of salary thereon under
the
U.P.
Nagar
Mahapalika
Sewa
Niyamawali, 1962 read with the U.P.
Nagar Mahapalika Service (Designation,
Scales of Pay, Qualifications, Conveyance
Allowance and Method of Recruitment)
Order, 1963. In para 6 of the aforesaid
counter affidavit it is averred that Section
107 (3) gives power to the Mukhya Nagar
Adhikari alone to make appointment after
recommendation of Selection Committee
constituted
by
the
Mukhya
Nagar
Adhikari, Mukhya Nagar Lekhaparikshak
and Head of the Department concerned as
existed before 1994. The Head of the
Department concerned has power to make
appointments on only the posts carrying
an initial salary of not more than Rs.180/-
per mensem. In 1984 the petitioners
carried initial salary of Rs.315/- and in
1988 Rs.325/- per mensem. Thus, Nagar
Swasthya Adhikari as Head of the
Department had no power to appoint the
petitioners under Section 107 (5) of the
U.P. Municipal Corporations Adhiniyam,
1959 (hereinafter referred to as the
Adhiniyam) on the relevant date. It is
further averred that till 1989 there were
no election, hence Nagar Mahapalika was
not elected and constituted, as such the
Administrator exercised all the powers of
appointment. By G.O. dated 10.3.1978 the
State Government specifically directed
that the selection committee for the posts
carrying initial pay of Rs.200/- per month
must consist Administrator along with
two other officers and that under Section
108 of the Adhiniyam the maximum
period
provided
of
temporary
appointments was one year only.
702 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
8. In paragraph 7 of the counter
affidavit it is further averred that under
the
U.P.
Nagar
Mahapalika
Sewa
Niyamawali, 1962 the appointment can
only be made by Mukhya Nagar Adhikari
himself for which list of vacancies is to be
prepared first. Rule 19 of the Rules gives
power to Mukhya Nagar Adhikari alone
to make appointment in accordance with
the recommendation of the selection
committee and Rules 17 to 21 give power
to make regular selection.

9. In paragraph 8 of the counter
affidavit it is averred that in accordance
with Government Order dated 10.3.1978
the
Administrator/Mukhya
Nagar
Adhikari is the appointing authority and
not the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari and that
the post of Vaccinator is dying cadre. For
eradication of small pox the post of
Vaccinators were created which came to
an end in the year 1982; that these posts
are now not continuing in Nagar Nigam,
Varanasi and that under Government
Order dated 11.3.1976 all medical service
staff of the Nagar Nigam has been
directed to work under Family Planning
Scheme.

10. In paragraph 10 of the counter
affidavit it is averred that Government
Order dated 25.2.1983 appended as
Annexure C.A. 6 to the counter affidavit
clearly speaks about stopping of the work
of vaccination from the year 1977 and the
employees of Health Department were
directed to be absorbed as Health Workers
under the scheme known as Bahu
Uddeshiyaa Karyakarta Yojana for rural
area in the State service.

11. The contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioners is that the
impugned
termination
order
dated
6.1.1997 has been passed in reference to
Government Order dated 28.4.1984 which
is not applicable to the petitioners, but to
the Vaccinators of Health and Family
Welfare Department of State of U.P. It is
stated that the Vaccinators of State Health
Department and Nagar Nigam, Varanasi
were separate and the post of Vaccinators
and Paid Apprentice Vaccinators of Nagar
Nigam, Varanasi were not of dying cadre
as has been stated by the respondents in
the counter affidavit and that the fact is
that the post of Vaccinators and Paid
Apprentice
Vaccinators
in
all
the
Mahapalikas (Now Nagar Nigams) were
not only continuing upto the year 1990
but thereafter also as is also evident from
Annexure R.A. 1 to the rejoinder
affidavit.

12. It is urged that it has been
wrongly stated in the counter affidavit
that options were called from all the
Vaccinators of Nagar Nigam, Varanasi to
join as Swasthya Karyakarta as has been
stated in the Government Order dated
28.4.1984 as no options were ever called
from the Vaccinators working in Nagar
Nigam to join as Swasthya Karyakarta. It
is submitted in the counter affidavit that
in pursuance of order dated 25.11.1989
passed by the Director, Medical Health
and Family Welfare, Lucknow, the
District
Health
Officer,
Nagar
Mahapalika, Varanasi passed an order
dated
12.12.1989
designating
all
vaccinators
as
Ex-officio
Deputy
Registrars; that the respondents in the
counter affidavit have not disclosed the
fact that the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari by
order dated 18.5.1996 had directed all the
vaccinators including the petitioners to be
posted in different wards for the work of
registration of birth and death; that it is
not denied in the counter affidavit that the
3 All] Sunil Kumar Srivastava and another V. State of U.P. and others
703
petitioners were appointed on substantive
post and that their appointment was made
by the selection committee and approved
by the Administrator and that it is wrong
to say that Swasthya Adhikari was not
competent authority for appointing the
petitioners as vaccinators. According to
Section 107 (5) of U.P. Municipal
Corporations Adhininiyam, 1959 the
Nagar Swasthya Adhikari being head of
the Health Department was entitled to
make appointment of the petitioners on
the pot of Vaccinators. It is further
submitted that Nagar Swasthya Adhikaris
are the officers of the Public Health
Department of the State Government who
are sent on deputation in the Nagar
Nigams and that both the petitioners are
aged about 50 years, hence and in case
they are thrown out of job they and their
family members will suffer a lot for no
fault of theirs.

13. The learned counsel for the
petitioners relied upon the decisions
rendered in Rajendra Prasad Srivastava
Vs
District
Inspector
of
Schools,
Gorakhpur, 1994 (2) A.C.J. 781 (D.B.);
Kamal Kant Gautam & Others Vs
District
Registrar/Addl.
District
Magistrate
(Finance
&
Revenue),
Muzaffarnagar & Others, 1996 (2)
A.W.C. 927 (D.B.); Sri Rakesh Chandra
Mittal Vs State of U.P. & Others, 1995
(2) LBESR 752 (D.B.); and Rajendra
Singh Yadav Vs Executive Officer,
Nagar Palika, Firozabad & Others,
1996 (1) LBESR 677.

14. In Rajendra Prasad Srivastava
(supra) it has been held that even if initial
appointment of an employee is bad due to
some infirmity but if he has been allowed
to work for some years and thereafter
further under the stay order of the Court,
it will be highly unfair to remove such
employee.

15. In Kamal Kant Gautam
(supra) it has been held that since the
petitioner continued to work for about 11
years on the basis of interim order of the
Court he must have become over-aged
and may not be able to get service in other
department particularly when there is
nothing on record to show that the
petitioner was also a party to the
irregularities in the selection, it will not be
fair to terminate the services of an
employee who has put in more than 11
years and the employee is entitled to be
regularised.

16. In Rakesh Chandra Mittal
(supra) it is held that even if there is
some irregularity in an appointment such
irregularity may be ignored particularly
when an employee has put in about 20
years of service.

17. In Rajendra Singh Yadav
(supra) it has been held that even if an
appointment is invalid being not made by
competent authority specially when there
is Government Order not to make
appointment on the post, the employee
should be given right to be heard before
cancellation of the appointment.

18. Per contra, learned counsel for
the respondents contends that Section 106
(2) and Section 109 of the Adhiniyam
give power to the State Government alone
and not to the Nagar Nigam in the matter
of fixing qualifications, emoluments,
conditions of services of the employees of
Nagar Nigam. Since the petitioners claim
to be appointed by Nagar Swasthya
Adhikari on 18.12.1984 and 24.3.1988
respectively the provisions as existed on
704 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
the dates of their appointment and prior to
amendment dated 30.5.1994 are relevant.
The learned counsel firstly submits that
Nagar Swasthya Adhikari had no power
to appoint the petitioners for the following
reasons: -

(a) Old Section 107 (3) (b) gave
power to the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari
(now Nagar Ayukta) alone to make
appointments in respect of all servants on
recommendation of Selection Committee
consisting of the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari,
Mukhya Nagar Lekha Parikshak and
Head of the Department concerned.

(b)
Prior
to
amendment
dated
30.5.1994 the provision of Section 107 (5)
(old) gave power of appointment to Head
of the Department concerned in case the
post carried an initial salary of not more
than Rs.180/- per mensem. Thus, Nagar
Swasthya
Adhikari
being
Head
of
Department had no power to appoint the
petitioners under Section 107(5) of the
Adhiniyam as the post of Vaccinator on
the date of appointments of the petitioners
was carrying the initial salary of Rs.315/-
in 1984 and Rs.325/- in the year 1988.

(c) The initial salary of the post of
Paid
Apprentice
Vaccinator
as
on
13.6.1988 was Rs. 315/- per month as is
evident from the Government Order dated
30.12.1981 appended as Annexure C.A. 3
to the counter affidavit. Admittedly the
initial salary of petitioner no. 1 on
19.12.1984 was Rs.315/- per month.
Similarly the initial salary of petitioner
no. 2 on 24.3.1988 was Rs.315/- per
month as Paid Apprentice and from
13.6.1988 it became Rs. 325/- per month
which is the same as on date.

19. The second submission of the
learned counsel for the respondents is that
no selection was made as per the statutory
provisions.
The
Nagar
Nigam/Nagar
Mahapalika cannot act at its own in the
matter of creation or abolition of the posts
and for the payment of salary thereon
under the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Sewa
Niyamawali, 1962 read with U.P. Nagar
Mahapalika Service (Designations, Scales
of
Pay,
Qualifications,
Conveyance
Allowances and Method of Recruitment)
Order, 1963. Clause 5 of the aforesaid
order 1963 read with Section 106 does not
give any power to Nagar Nigam to create
posts, but the Nagar Nigam is to follow
directions
issued
by
the
State
Government. Clause 5 (1) is as under: -

"5 (1). No posts other than the posts
mentioned in the Schedule shall be
created by a Mahapalika under clause (vi)
of Sub-Section (1) of Section 106 nor
shall any existing post be combined with
another post except with the prior
sanction of the Government and on such
terms and conditions as Government may
specify in that behalf.
(2) Clause 5 (2) provides for taking
of approval of State Government."

20. The next submission of the
learned counsel for the respondents is that
the post of Vaccinator is dying cadre. The
pattern of the posts in Health Department
is
to
be
governed
by
the
State
Government under the direction issued
from time to time by the Government of
India. By order dated 28.4.1984 options
were sought from old employees for
absorption in new cadre of service and
further direction was issued not to make
any appointment on such posts and to
cancel such appointments, if any. Another
Government Order dated 6.7.1983 was
3 All] Sunil Kumar Srivastava and another V. State of U.P. and others
705
also issued and an option was given to 11
Vaccinators and one Paid Apprentice
Vaccinator working in Nagar Nigam to
join under the Scheme referred to above,
but it appears that they did not join under
the Scheme as a result of which
Government Order dated 28.4.1984 was
issued reiterating the ban imposed on
making appointment on the posts covered
under the Scheme including the post of
Vaccinator. Under the Uttar Pradesh State
Control over Public Corporation Act,
1975 read with the provisions of Sections
106, 107 , 108-A, 109, 112-A and 112 (3)
of the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act the
authorities of Corporation/Nagar Nigam
shall be guided by directions issued on the
questions of policies given by the State
Government. The Government order of
1981, 1984 etc. in fact contained policy
directions for the guidance of Nagar
Mahapalika and its authorities.

21. The learned counsel for the
respondents then submitted that the
petitioners
have
available
alternate
remedy by filing appeal under Rules 35
and 36 of the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika
Sewa Niyamawali, 1962.

In support of his contention the
learned counsel for the respondents has
relied upon the decisions rendered in State
of Karnataka Vs Uma Devi, (2006) 4
S.C.C. 1; and State of M.P. Vs Lalit
Kumar Verma; (2007) 1 S.C.C. 577.

In State of Karnataka Vs Uma
Devi (Supra) it has been held: -

"The distinction between "irregular
appointment" and "illegal appointment" is
apparent. In the event the appointment is
made
in
total
disregard
of
the
constitutional
scheme
as
also
the
recruitment rules framed by the employer,
which is a part of the "State" within the
meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution,
the recruitment would be an illegal one;
whereas there may be cases where,
although substantial compliance with the
constitutional scheme as also the rules
have been made, the appointment may be
irregular
in
the
sense
that
some
provisions of some rules might not have
been strictly adhered to."

In State of M.P. Vs Lalit Kumar Verma
(supra), it has been held that: -

"Adherence to the rule of equality in
public employment is a basic feature of
our Constitution and since the rule of law
is the core of our Constitution, a court
would certainly be disabled from passing
an order upholding a violation of Article
14 or in ordering the overlooking of the
need to comply with the acquirements of
Article 14 read with Article 16 of the
Constitution. Therefore, consistent with
the scheme for public employment, this
Court while laying down the law, has
necessarily to hold that unless the
appointment is in terms of the relevant
rules and after a proper competition
among qualified persons, the same would
not confer any right on the appointee. If it
is
a
contractual
appointment,
the
appointment comes to an end at the end of
the contract, if it were an engagement or
appointment on daily wages or casual
basis, the same would come to an end
when it is discontinued. Similarly, a
temporary employee could not claim to be
made permanent on the expiry of his term
of appointment. It has also to be clarified
that
merely
because
a
temporary
employee or a casual wage worker is
continued for a time beyond the term of
his appointment, he would not be entitled
706 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
to be absorbed in regular service or made
permanent, merely on the strength of such
continuance, if the original appointment
was not made by following a due process
of selection as envisaged by the relevant
rules. It is not open to the court to prevent
regular recruitment at the instance of
temporary employees whose period of
employment has come to an end or of ad
hoc employees who by the very nature of
their appointment do not acquire any
right. High Courts acting under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, should
not
ordinarily
issue
directions
for
absorption, regularization, or permanent
continuance unless the recruitment itself
was made regularly and in terms of the
constitutional scheme. Merely because, an
employee had continued under cover of
an order of court, which we have
described as 'litigious employment' in the
earlier part of the judgment, he would not
be entitled to any right to be absorbed or
made permanent in the service. In fact, in
such cases, the High Court may not be
justified in issuing interim directions,
since, after all, if ultimately the employee
approaching it is found entitled to relief,
it may be possible for it to mould the
relief in such a manner that ultimately no
prejudice will be caused to him, whereas
an interim direction to continue his
employment would hold up the regular
procedure for selection or impose on the
State the burden of paying an employee
who is really not required. The courts
must be careful in ensuring that they do
not interfere unduly with the economic
arrangement of its affairs by the State or
its instrumentalities or lend themselves
the instruments to facilitate the bypassing
of
the
constitutional
and
statutory
mandates."

22. After giving my thoughtful
consideration to the rival contentions, I
am of the view that the decisions relied
upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioners are distinguishable and do not
apply to the instant case.

23. In my opinion, the appointments
of the petitioners are collusive and back
door
entry
without
following
the
procedure. As averred in paragraph 25 of
the counter affidavit petitioner no. 1 is the
son of Sri Vijay Bahadur Lal Srivastava, a
retired vaccinator, and petitioner no. 2 is
the nephew of Sri Kewal Prasad Dubey,
Vaccinator Superintendent. It appears that
the appointments of the petitioners were
made to oblige the ex-employees for the
reasons best known to the then District
Health Officer, Nagar Nigam, Varanasi.

24. It is apparent that the power of
appointment at the relevant time vested in
the State Government and the petitioners
could not have been appointed by the
Nagar Swasthaya Adhikari under Section
107 (5) of the Adhiniyam since the post of
Vaccinator was carrying initial salary of
Rs.315/- in 1984 and Rs.325/- in 1988.
Their appointment was therefore not only
in contravention of the Adhiniyam but
also of the G.O. dated 30.12.1981. The
selection/appointment of the petitioners
was also not in conformity with the
statutory powers under the U.P. Nagar
Mahapalika Sewa Niyamawali, 1962 read
with Clause 5 of the U.P. Nagar
Mahapalika Service (Designations, Scales
of
Pay,
Qualifications,
Conveyance
Allowances and Method of Recruitment)
Order, 1963, Section 106 (2) and Section
109 of the Adhiniyam. Options had been
sought from the old employees of the
Nagar Nigam for absorption in the new
cadre of the scheme but the petitioners did
3 All] Chander V. State of U.P. and others
707
not join under the scheme formulated by
the State Government. The Nagar Nigam
did not have any power to create the post
and in the circumstances the petitioners
had no legal right to be appointed on a
post which did not exist.

25.

The
appointment
letters
appended as Annexures 1 and 2 to the
writ petition being issued by Nagar
Swasthya Adhikari who is not appointing
authority of the petitioners are illegal.
Moreover, there is no document on record
showing approval of the Administrator to
the appointment of the petitioners on the
post of vaccinator. In Annexure 3 to the
writ petition it is only mentioned that
there was approval of the Administrator
but there is no document on record to
establish the averment made in Annexure
3 aforesaid. Similarly the existence of any
valid selection committee consisting of
the Administrator has also not been
proved on record. The alleged selection
committee
was
not
consisting
of
competent
persons,
i.e.,
Administrator/Mukhya Nagar Adhikari as
per the G.O. dated 10.3.1978. The Nagar
Swasthya Adhikari is a member of Public
Health Department sent on deputation
under proviso to Section 107 (1) of the
U.P. Municipal Corporation Act and is
directly under control of the Chief
Medical Officer. The Nagar Swasthya
Adhikari is not the appointing authority of
the petitioners, hence the appointment
letters appended as Annexures 1 and 2 to
the writ petition cannot be read in aid of
the petitioners. It also appears from para
14 of the counter affidavit that no record
was available in the Nagar Mahapalika or
on
the
file
of
the
case
showing
constitution of selection committee and
approval of the Administrator.

26. For the reasons stated above and
in view of the law laid down by the apex
court relied upon by the learned counsel
for the respondents which aptly apply to
the instant case in the facts stated above,
the writ petition is dismissed. No order as
to costs.

 Petition Dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.09.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.N.SRIVASTAVA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 4177 of 2007

Chander

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

Counsel for Petitioner:
Sri. S.R. Verma
Sri A.K. Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri. Jai Singh
Sri. R.B. Sahai
S.C.

Constitution
of
India
Art.
226-
Agricultural
loan-recovery
through
private agencies-wholly uncalled for,
illegal-against the soul of Constitutionutter
disregard
to
the
procedure
prescribed under the U.P. Agricultural
Credit Act 1973.

Held: Para 17

If the law does not permit creation of
such agencies for recovering any loan or
seizure of vehicles by any Banks or
Financial Institutions which are doing
business of advancing loan to anybody,
such agencies are wholly incompetent to
take law in their own hands and seize
any vehicles at any time or at any place
or initiate recovery proceedings on their