# Sunil v. District Magistrate, Bijnor and others

- **Citation:** (2002) 1 ILRA 173
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-01-07
- **Bench:** M. Katju, S.K. Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sunil-v-district-magistrate-bijnor-and-others-39786
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Article 226, Art 21-
Habeas
Corpus
Petitions
detention
order-confined
for
period
of
yearchallenged made-petitions pending for
the last more and more year-almost
become infructuous by efflux of timecourt expressed its great concern-about
shortage
of
judges-constitutional
authorities equally responsible for delay
in appointment of judges.

Held - Para 6

The
Supreme
Court
in the Second
Judge's case, Supreme Court Advocates
on Record Association Vs. Union of India
AIR 1994 SC 268 observed that since the
date of retirement of a High Court Judge
is known the entire process of filling in
the vacancy to be caused by the
retirement should be completed before
one month of the date of the retirement
so that on the very next day after the
retirement the new appointee can start
functioning and in this way the work of
the court does not suffer. This was the
regular practice during British days and
for
some
time
after
Independence.
However it appears that a complete go
by has been given to the aforesaid nine
Judges decision of the Supreme Court,
and the plight of this court is a glaring
example of this. Some times 300 cases
are listed before a Judge and it is
physically impossible that a Judge can
decide 300 cases in one day. We are
informed that some other High Courts
also are in similar plight because the
vacancy of the Judges have not been
filled in. We earnestly request the
Constitutional authorities concerned in
the selection and appointment of High
Court Judges to take the matter in all
seriousness and promptitude realizing
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
174
the gravity of the situation and fill up the
vacancies at the earliest.

## Text

1All] Sunil V. District Magistrate, Bijnor and others
173
25. Perusal of the impugned
judgment and order, with reference to the
charts annexed with the writ petition as
Annexure 6 and 7 to the writ petition
clearly show that considerable amount of
Court fee as well as half lawyer's fee on
taxable side and clerkage have not been
deposited by the tenant-petitioner.

26. It is abundantly clear that tenant
has not deposited the required amount
towards "landlords" costs of the suit
contemplated under Section 20(4) of the
Act and, therefore, he cannot claim
benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act and
protect himself from eviction from the
accommodation in question.

27. In view of the above, I find no
manifest error apparent on the face of
record in the impugned judgment and
order dated 22.8.2001 (Annexure-1 to the
Writ Petition) passed by special Judge
(Anti-Corruption) Additional District and
Session Judge, Varanasi/Respondent no.
1. Petition lacks merit.

Consequently,
Writ
Petition
is,
accordingly, dismissed.

No order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD JANUARY 7, 2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE S.K. SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24325 Of 2001

Sunil

...Petitioner
Versus
District Magistrate, Bijnor and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anurag Khanna
Sri D.K. Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri S.M. Misra
A.G.A.

Constitution of India, Article 226, Art 21-
Habeas
Corpus
Petitions
detention
order-confined
for
period
of
yearchallenged made-petitions pending for
the last more and more year-almost
become infructuous by efflux of timecourt expressed its great concern-about
shortage
of
judges-constitutional
authorities equally responsible for delay
in appointment of judges.

Held - Para 6

The
Supreme
Court
in the Second
Judge's case, Supreme Court Advocates
on Record Association Vs. Union of India
AIR 1994 SC 268 observed that since the
date of retirement of a High Court Judge
is known the entire process of filling in
the vacancy to be caused by the
retirement should be completed before
one month of the date of the retirement
so that on the very next day after the
retirement the new appointee can start
functioning and in this way the work of
the court does not suffer. This was the
regular practice during British days and
for
some
time
after
Independence.
However it appears that a complete go
by has been given to the aforesaid nine
Judges decision of the Supreme Court,
and the plight of this court is a glaring
example of this. Some times 300 cases
are listed before a Judge and it is
physically impossible that a Judge can
decide 300 cases in one day. We are
informed that some other High Courts
also are in similar plight because the
vacancy of the Judges have not been
filled in. We earnestly request the
Constitutional authorities concerned in
the selection and appointment of High
Court Judges to take the matter in all
seriousness and promptitude realizing
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
174
the gravity of the situation and fill up the
vacancies at the earliest.

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. In Habeas Corpus petition No.
24325 of 2001 the impugned detention
order was passed on 18.12.2000 by which
the petitioner was ordered to be detained
for a period of one year. That period of
one year has expired and hence this
petition has become infructuous and is
dismissed as such.

2. It is deeply regrettable that this
habeas corpus petition and several other
petitions
listed
before
us
today
(mentioned
above),
have
become
infructuous
because
the
period
of
detention has expired. We are informed
that a large number of habeas corpus
petitions were dismissed as infructuous in
November and December last year.

3. The Supreme Court has observed
that Article 21 is the most basic of all the
fundamental rights in the Constitution as
individual liberty is a precious right. It is
deeply regrettable that habeas corpus
petitions are not being heard and the
petitions are becoming infructuous, as the
cases were not heard before the expiry of
the detention period. There was a time in
this Court when the habeas corpus
petitions used to be finally disposed off
within a week or 10 days of filing of the
same, and that is how it should be.
However, what is seen in recent times is
that habeas corpus petitions are becoming
infructuous.

4. Similarly, many bail applications
have been pending for 2 to 3 years in this
court. Criminal appeals filed in 1980 are
being taken up for hearing today.
Government appeals are pending for 5
years for admission. Learned standing
counsel informed us that stay vacation
applications are pending in this Court for
years, but could not be taken up for
hearing, due to shortage of judges.

5. This Court has a total strength of
95 Judges but at present there are only 47
incumbents (including in Lucknow bench)
and two more retirements are taking place
within a month. This is one of the main
reasons that the cases are not being
disposed of speedily.

6. The Supreme Court in the Second
Judge's case Supreme Court Advocates on
Record Association Vs. Union of India,
AIR 1994 SC 268 observed that since the
date of retirement of a High Court Judge
is known the entire process of filling in
the vacancy to be caused by that
retirement should be completed before
one month of the date of the retirement so
that on the very next day after the
retirement the new appointee can start
functioning and in this way the work of
the court does not suffer. This was the
regular practice during British days and
for
some
time
after
Independence.
However it appears that a complete go by
has been given to the aforesaid nine
Judges decision of the Supreme Court,
and the plight of this Court is a glaring
example of this, where vacancies have
continued for years. Sometimes 300 cases
are listed before a Judge and it is
physically impossible that a Judge can
decide 300 cases in one day. We are
informed that some other High Courts
also are in similar plight because the
vacancies of the Judges have not been
filled in. We earnestly request the
Constitutional authorities concerned in the
selection and appointment of High Court
1All] Lalji Shukla and another V. Election Commission of India and others
175
Judges
to
take
the
matter
in
all
seriousness and promptitude realizing the
gravity of the situation and fill up the
vacancies at the earliest.

7. Let the Registrar General of this
Court send a copy of this order to all the
concerned
constitutional
authorities
forthwith.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD JANUARY 16, 2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE S.K. SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2157 of 2002

Lalji Shukla

...Petitioner
Versus
Election Commission of India and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Umesh Narain Sharma
Sri Ravi Kiran Jain
Sri Rishi Chandra

Counsel for the Respondent:
S.C.
Sri Pradeep Kumar
Sri S.K. Mendiratta
Sri S.N. Srivastava

Constitution of India, Article 324(c) -
Direction of Election Commission of
India dated 28.12.2001 - Transfer of
those Class I Police Officers who are
working for last 4 years continuously in
the same District-but not be posted in
their
home
district-whether
such
direction is contrary to provisions of
Article 324 (1) of the Constitution. HeldNo.

Held - Para 6

A perusal of the said provision shows
that the Election Commission is incharge
of the superintendence, direction and
control
of
the
preparation
of
the
electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all
elections of the Parliament and to the
State
Legislature.
The
words
`Superintendence, direction and control'
and the words' conduct of elections' are
very wide words and thus they give
power to the Election Commission to do
all that is necessary to ensure free and
fair elections so that the will of the
people can be expressed thereby. In our
opinion the impugned directions of the
Election Commission are well within the
powers conferred to it by Article 324 (1)
of the Constitution of India.

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. Heard Shri U.N. Sharma, learned
counsel for the petitioners, Shri S.K.
Mendiratta and Shri S.N. Srivastava for
the
Election
Commission
and
Shri
Pradeep Kumar for the State Government.

2. This writ petition has been filed
against the impugned order of the
Election Commission of India dated
28.12.2001, Annexure-1 to the writ
petition and the subsequent transfer order
dated 13.1.2002, Annexure-2 to the writ
petition.

3.

The
petitioners
are
U.P.
Government servants, petitioner no.1 is
the S.P. City and petitioner no.2 is Addl.
S.P. (Yamuna Paar) Allahabad. Both the
petitioners have been posted at Allahabad
for more than four years. Petitioner no.1
joined as Addl. S.P. City on 25.4.1998
and prior to that he was posted in 42 Bn.
P.A.C. Naini, Allahabad and he has
admittedly completed more than four
years in Allahabad District. Similarly
petitioner no.2 was posted as addl. S.P.
(Yamuna Paar), Allahabad on 25.4.1998