# Umaraw Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 1 ILRA 1936
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-11-16
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 5641 of 2019
- **Bench:** Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, Piyush Agrawal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/umaraw-singh-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45091
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Act, 1973 - Section 15 - The Development
Authority cancelled the sanctioned mapon
the
direction
of
the
District
magistrate-bad-District magistrate have
no jurisdiction -to issue order in property
matter under the garb of law and order
situation-appropriate
remedy-under
provisions of Criminal Procedure Codebefore the Magistrate and not District
Magistrate-Development Authority also
cancelled the map without opportunity of
hearing.

Held, an administrative officer has no authority
to issue direction in the property dispute, on
the ground of apprehension of breach of
1938 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
peace. In case there is any apprehension of
breach of peace in respect of the property
dispute, the appropriate remedy has been
provided under the provisions of the Criminal
Procedure Code where the power has been
conferred upon the Magistrate and not the
District Magistrate. Moreover, in the present
case the provisions of the Criminal Procedure
Code have not been followed. (Para 20)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-9)

List of cases cited: -

## Text

1 All. M/S Auto Service Vs. Indian Oil Corporation & Anr.
1937
not detain us any long for the simple
reason that the legal issue stands already
answered that if applications have been
invited on all India basis and only
preference will be given to the TTs
registered in U.P. and in the event if the
TTs registered in the State of U.P. do not
fulfill
the
requirement
then
those
applicants who are of the SC/ ST category
of the other State with their TTs registered
in other State will be considered the
unfilled quota will be adjusted with them.

30. Here it is not a case that whether the
quota has remained unfilled. The legal point
raised is that tender applicants of SC/ ST
category of other State cannot be permitted to
apply against the SC/ ST category if the
services are offered for the State of U.P. and
requirement is State specific. Since it is not a
State sponsored scheme or State owned
employment by the Central Government
owned Corporation has floated tender inviting
applications from all over the country, all SC
and ST category truck owners/ transporters
having their registered TTs in State of U.P.
thus registered in other States are all eligible to
apply and are to be considered in that special
reserved category, however, consideration of
their applications will be subject to preference
in respect of state registered TTs.

31. In view of the above discussions
made
herenabove
in
this
judgment
referring to various authorities, the legal
argument raised by the learned counsels
for the respective parties and conclusion
drawn, we do not find any illegality or
perversity in the order impugned so far as
the first point is concerned and it stands
answered against the petitioner.

32. The second point has not been
argued at all but even otherwise we do not
find that the findings of fact that have been
recorded with regard to the second
complaint leave any scope of interference
by this Court in exercise of power under
Article 226 of the Constitution.

33. The writ petition lacks merit and
is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as
to cost.
----------
(2020)1ILR 1936

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.11.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.
THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

Writ-C No. 5641 of 2019

Umaraw Singh Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri P.K. Upadhyay, Sri Manoj Kumar
Dubey, Sri Vipul Kumar Dubey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri A.P. Singh, Sri Sriprakash Singh

A. U.P. Urban Planning and Development
Act, 1973 - Section 15 - The Development
Authority cancelled the sanctioned mapon
the
direction
of
the
District
magistrate-bad-District magistrate have
no jurisdiction -to issue order in property
matter under the garb of law and order
situation-appropriate
remedy-under
provisions of Criminal Procedure Codebefore the Magistrate and not District
Magistrate-Development Authority also
cancelled the map without opportunity of
hearing.

Held, an administrative officer has no authority
to issue direction in the property dispute, on
the ground of apprehension of breach of
1938 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
peace. In case there is any apprehension of
breach of peace in respect of the property
dispute, the appropriate remedy has been
provided under the provisions of the Criminal
Procedure Code where the power has been
conferred upon the Magistrate and not the
District Magistrate. Moreover, in the present
case the provisions of the Criminal Procedure
Code have not been followed. (Para 20)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-9)

List of cases cited: -

1. Madan Kumar and others v. District Magistrate,
Auraiya and others, 2013 (10) ADJ 606

2.Dipak Babaria And Another v. State of
Gujarat And Others, (2014) 3 SCC 502

3. M/s Travancore Rayon Ltd. v. Union of India,
1969 (3) SCC 868

4. S.N.Mukherjee v. Union of India, AIR 1990
SC 1984

5. Union of India Vs. Mohan Lal Capoor, AIR
1974 SC 87

6. Raj Kishore Jha Vs. State of Bihar, (2003) 11
SCC 519

7.Kranti Associates Private Limited Vs. Masood
Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496

8. Sant Lal Gupta and others v. Modern
Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited and
others, (2010) 13 SCC 336

9. J. Ashoka v. University of Agricultural
Science and others, (2017) 2 SCC 609

10.Devmani v. State of U.P. and others, 2019
(1) ADJ 870 (DB)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar
Singh Baghel, J.)

1. The petitioner has instituted this
writ proceedings challenging the order
dated 02.11.2018 passed by the Secretary,
Azamgarh
Development
Authority,
respondent no.5 and the order passed by
the District Magistrate dated 06.12.2018.

2. The facts are these:

The petitioner claims that he is owner
and bhumidhar of araji no.491 situated in
Village
Narauli,
Tappa
Harvanshpur,
Pargana Nizamabad, District Azamgarh
and araji nos. 486 and 490 are adjacent to
the petitioner's plot, which he has no
concern. In support of the said averment
the petitioner has brought on record a copy
of the Khatauni of the Fasli year 14231428. The said plot has been purchased by
the petitioner from Kailash Chauhan
through
registered
sale
deed
dated
19.05.2016. Demarcation report dated
23.07.2017 submitted by the Lekhpal and
Revenue Inspector in respect of the
aforesaid three plots is brought on record.
The said map is said to have been
approved
by
the
Sub-Divisional
Magistrate,
Sadar
vide
order
dated
31.07.2017.

3. The petitioner intended to raise
construction of the house over the plot
no.491.
Accordingly,
he
moved
an
application
before
the
Azamgarh
Development Authority for sanction of the
map. On 01.11.2017, the Azamgarh
Development Authority sanctioned the
map, which is on the record.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is
that the District Magistrate without any
authority is interfering in the matter to
help the private respondents. It is stated
that the District Magistrate has taken
undue interest in the matter to provide
benefit to the respondent nos.5 and 6. He
has got a report dated 10.09.2018, which
was submitted by the Sub-Divisional
1 All. Umaraw Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1939
Magistrate,
Sadar,
Azamgarh
in
compliance of the endorsement made by
the District magistrate on 20.07.2018.
When the petitioner came to know about
the ex-parte report dated 10.09.2018,
submitted Secretary by the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Sadar, Azamgarh, he moved
an application to the Commissioner,
Azamgarh to bring the illegal action to his
notice. On 14.09.2018, the Commissioner
directed the District Magistrate, Azamgarh
to get an enquriy in the matter at the level
of the Additional District Magistrate and
submit a report. The said order is on the
record. It is averred in the writ petition that
the Chief Revenue Officer, Azamgarh,
without conducting any enquiry at his
level, on the basis of the report dated
14.09.2018
submitted
by
the
SubDivisional Magistrate, Sadar, Azamgarh,
submitted
an
ex-parte
report
dated
26.10.2018 to the District Magistrate. The
District Magistrate while forwarding the
report to the Commissioner made an
endorsement dated 26.10.2018 directing to
lodge
a
criminal
case
against
the
petitioner. It is stated that the said order is
ex-parte and without jurisdiction.

5. Dissatisfied with the said order
passed by the District Magistrate, the
petitioner filed Writ Petition No.37328 of
2018 before this Court, wherein an interim
order has been granted by this Court. It is
averred that when a counter affidavit was
filed in the said writ petition then the
petitioner came to know that by order
dated 02.11.2018 the Secretary, Azamgarh
Development Authority has cancelled the
order dated 01.11.2017 whereby the
petitioner's map was sanctioned. The said
order is under challenge in the present
proceedings. The said order records that
the order has been passed on the
instruction of the District Magistrate. It is
stated that no opportunity of hearing has
been Secretary given by the respondent
no.5 before passing the impugned order
dated 02.11.2018 and the order is also
without jurisdiction as the authority is not
vested with the power of review. It is also
averred in the writ petition that the order
has been passed at the dictate of the
District Magistrate, Azamgarh, who has no
jurisdiction under the U.P. Urban Planning
and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act'). It is stated that
only the Vice-Chairman has power under
Section 15(9) of the Act to cancel the
permission granted under Section 15(3) of
the Act.

6. Since a serious issue was raised by
the petitioner that the order of the District
Magistrate is without jurisdiction as he has
no power under the provisions of the Act
to issue any direction to the Development
Authority to cancel the map, we had
furnished opportunity to the District
Magistrate to file an affidavit sworn by
him indicating under which provisions of
law he has issued direction to the
Secretary of the Development Authority to
cancel the map. In compliance thereof the
District Magistrate has filed his personal
affidavit. The respondent nos. 5 and 6
have also filed their counter affidavit.

7. The District Magistrate in the
counter affidavit has justified his order on
the ground that he has passed the order
dated
06.12.2018,
in
a
routine
administrative work to maintain the law
and order. The relevant part of the
paragraph is extracted:

"That the respondent Secretary
no.6 gave an application dated 06.12.2018
during Jan Sunwai before the deponent,
stating that some anti social elements are
1940 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
interfering in his possession over his plot
no.490 and requested for a direction to the
S.H.O. Sidhari, Azamgarh to ensure that
no interference be made in construction
over his plot by the anti social elements.
The deponent on this application passed
his order dated 06.12.2018 in a routine
administrative
manner
directing
the
S.O.Sidhari to take necessary action to
ensure law and order in accordance with
law and to do needful against the anti
social elements, if any, who creates
hindrance in construction of work of the
respondent no.6 . It is further submitted
that no such direction is given with regard
to
facilitate
the
applicant
in
his
construction."

8. It is also stated by the District
Magistrate that he is Vice-Chairman of the
Development Authority and even in this
capacity he has not issued any direction to
the
Secretary
of
the
Azamgarh
Development Authority with regard to the
cancellation of the order dated 01.11.2017.
The private respondents have also filed
counter affidavits. In the counter affidavit
they have raised the issue regarding the
title. Hence, we are not recording the stand
taken by the private respondents in detail
as in the proposed order we are adverting
to the merit of the case. We are confining
ourself only to the issue with regard to the
violation of principles of natural justice
and the jurisdiction of Administrative
Officer in passing the administrative order
in the property dispute.

9. We have heard the learned counsel
for the parties and perused the materials on
record.

10. Concededly, the Development
Authority has sanctioned the map of the
petitioner vide order dated 01.11.2017
under Section 15 of the Act. It is alleged
that the private respondents have made a
complaint to the District Magistrate
regarding the illegality in sanctioning the
map.

11. From the personal affidavit of the
District Magistrate it is evident that the
District Magistrate has examined the issue
on merit and has perused the report dated
23.07.2017 submitted by the revenue team
to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar
and on his direction the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Sadar has initiated a fresh
enquiry. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate in
compliance of the direction of the District
Magistrate directed the revenue team
constituted under the Chairmanship of
Naib Tehsildar to make fresh survey
(paimaish) of the plot nos. 486 and 490 of
the respondent no.6 and plot no.491 of the
petitioner. The revenue team submitted its
paimaish report dated 12.11.2017. The
Sub-Divisional
Magistrate,
Sadar
approved the same and submitted it to the
District Magistrate, Azamgarh.

12. When the petitioner came to
know about the said survey, he also made
a complaint to the District Magistrate,
Azamgarh.
The
District
Magistrate,
Azamgarh directed the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Sadar to make an enquiry and
submit a report. The Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Sadar submitted another report
dated 23.04.2018 and affirmed its earlier
report dated 12.11.2017.

13. The District Magistrate in his
counter affidavit has not denied the fact
that the order of the Development
Authority sanctioning the map of the
petitioner dated 01.11.2017 has been
cancelled without furnishing opportunity
to the petitioner. It has also not been
1 All. Umaraw Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1941
denied in the counter affidavit that the plot
no.491 was purchased by the petitioner
through a registered sale deed dated
19.05.2016 and after survey a report dated
23.07.2017 was submitted by the Lekhpal
and the Revenue Inspector, which was
approved by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate
vide order dated 31.07.2017. A copy of the
order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate
dated 31.07.2017 is on the record.

14. The order of the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Sadar was not challenged by
the respondent nos. 5 and 6 and they
directly approached the District Magistrate
after a fresh Paimaish. In the counter
affidavit of the District Magistrate or the
private respondents it has not been averred
that the order of the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate
dated
31.07.2017
was
challenged. There is discrepancy in the
counter affidavit filed by the District
Magistrate and the respondent no.6. The
District Magistrate has mentioned in his
affidavit that the respondent no.6 has made
an application to him and on the said
application he has directed to the SubDivisional Magistrate, Sadar to make a
fresh survey. However, this fact has not
been mentioned by the respondent no.6 in
his counter affidavit and he has stated that
he has moved an application before the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Azamgarh. In
fact, he has not mentioned that the District
Magistrate, Azamgarh has directed the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar to make
a fresh enquiry. In view of the said
contradiction
in
the
affidavits
of
respondent
no.6
and
the
District
Magistrate, Azamgarh, it is difficult to
believe the statement of the respondent
no.6 in the counter affidavit.

15. The U.P. Urban Planning and
Development
Act,
1973
(hereinafter
referred to as the Act, 1973) is a complete
Code in respect of the plan development in
the development area notified under the
said Act. Section 14 and 15 of the Act,
1973 deals with the sanction of the map. In
the
present
case
the
Development
Authority exercising its statutory power
under Section 15 of the Act, 1973 has
sanctioned the map. Once the map has
been sanctioned, the District Magistrate
has no power to issue direction to the
Secretary of the Development Authority to
cancel the map.

16. Pertinently, in the impugned
order, the Secretary of the Development
Authority has clearly mentioned that the
order cancelling the map is passed in
compliance of the direction of the District
Magistrate. Moreover, the order is cryptic
and bereft of reason. It is well settled law
that the statutory authority has to pass an
order applying his mind. If he takes a
decision on the dictate of some statutory
authority, the order stands vitiated. This
Court in the case of Madan Kumar and
others v. District Magistrate, Auraiya
and others, 2013 (10) ADJ 606 had
occasion to deal with similar issue. The
Court has quoted with approval Professor
De Smith and Professor Wade in following
terms:

"21. Professor De Smith, in his
Principles
of
Judicial
Review
1999
Edition, page 240 has aptly said :

"an authority entrusted with a
discretion must not, in the purported
exercise of its discretion, act under the
dictation of another body or person. In at
least two Commonwealth cases, licensing
bodies were found to have taken decision
on the instructions of the heads of
Government who were prompted by
extraneous motives. But, as less colourful
1942 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
cases illustrate, it is enough to show that a
decision which ought to have been based
on the exercise of independent judgment
was dictated by those not entrusted with
the power to decide, although it remains a
question of fact whether the repository of
discretion abdicated it in the face of
external pressure."

Professor
Wade
in
his
Administrative Law, 7th Edition has dealt
with "Surrender, Abdication, Dictation"
and "Power in the wrong hands" in the
following words:-

"Closely akin to delegation, and
scarcely distinguishable from it in some
cases, is any arrangement by which a
power conferred upon one authority is in
substance exercised by another. The
proper authority may share its power with
someone else, or may allow someone else
to dictate to it by declining to act without
their consent or by submitting to their
wishes or instructions. The effect then is
that
the
discretion
conferred
by
Parliament is exercised, at least in part, by
the wrong authority, and the resulting
decision is ultra vires and void. So strict
are the Courts in applying this principle
that they condemn some administrative
arrangements which must seem quite
natural and proper to those who make
them....

Ministers and their departments
have several times fallen foul of the same
rule, no doubt equally to their surprise...."

22. This paragraph of Professor
Wade has been applied by the Supreme
Court in the case of Anirudhsinhji
Karansinhji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat,
(1995) 5 SCC 302."

Broad principle that emerges is
that if a power conferred upon an
authority
is
not
exercised
by
him
independently within the framework of the
Statute/ law and the decision is taken by
him under the "dictation" of a superior
authority or a Minister, it shows that he
has abdicated his power.

Yet there is another aspect of the
matter which cannot be lost sight. From the
material on record we find that contention of
learned counsel for the petitioner that the
action of the respondents suffers from legal
malice also. "Malice in law" or "Legal
Malice" can vitiate a decision if it established
that something has been done without lawful
excuse. In such cases it need not to be proved,
where the malice is alleged against the State
that there was some personal ill-will on the
part of the State. If the action of the State
shows that there is a conscious violation of law
to cause some prejudice to a citizen or rights.
Such an order for an unauthorized purpose
constitutes malice in law. In the case of Kranti
Associates Private Limited and another v.
Masood Ahmed Khan and others, (2010) 9
SCC 496 the Supreme Court has considered
the legal malice in the following terms:

"25. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union
of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 : AIR 1978 SC
597, which is a decision of great
jurisprudential
significance
in
our
constitutional
law,
Beg,
C.J.
in
a
concurring but different opinion held that
an order impounding a passport is a
quasi-judicial decision (SCC p. 311, para
34 : AIR p. 612, para 34). The learned
Chief
Justice
also
held,
when
an
administrative
action
involving
any
deprivation
of
or
restriction
on
fundamental rights is taken, the authorities
must see that justice is not only done but
manifestly appears to be done as well. This
principle
would
obviously
demand
disclosure of reasons for the decision."

17. In Dipak Babaria And Another
v. State of Gujarat And Others, (2014) 3
SCC 502, the Supreme Court has
reiterated the principle that if power
1 All. Umaraw Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1943
conferred upon the authority under the
statute
is
not
exercised
by
him
independently and decision is taken by
him under the instruction (dictation) of a
superior authority, it goes to show that he
has not applied his mind and abdicated his
power.

18. In the present case the
Development Authority has categorically
mentioned that the order has been passed
on the direction of the District Magistrate.
The District Magistrate in his personal
affidavit has also stated that he has issued
the direction in a routine administrative
work.

19. Applying the principles laid
down in the above cases, we find that the
order
passed
by
the
Secretary,
Development Authority cancelling the
map of the petitioner is vitiated on the
ground that it has been passed on the
direction of the District Magistrate. The
said order is also illegal as it is not
supported by any reason. The Secretary,
Azamgarh Development Authority has
recorded only his conclusion without
assigning any reason. The Supreme Court
in the long line of the judgment has held
that if quasi judicial or administrative
order is not supported by any reason, the
order becomes lifeless. A reference may
be made to the Supreme Court judgments
in the case of M/s Travancore Rayon
Ltd. v. Union of India, 1969 (3) SCC
868, S.N.Mukherjee v. Union of India,
AIR 1990 SC 1984, Union of India Vs.
Mohan Lal Capoor, AIR 1974 SC 87,
Raj Kishore Jha Vs. State of Bihar,
(2003) 11 SCC 519, Kranti Associates
Private Limited Vs. Masood Ahmed
Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, Sant Lal
Gupta
and
others
v.
Modern
Cooperative Group Housing Society
Limited and others, (2010) 13 SCC 336
and
J.
Ashoka
v.
University
of
Agricultural Science and others, (2017)
2 SCC 609.

20. In addition to above, in a
property matter the District Magistrate has
no jurisdiction to issue order under the
garb of law and order situation. An
administrative officer has no authority to
issue direction in the property dispute, on
the ground of apprehension of breach of
peace. In case there is any apprehension of
breach of peace in respect of the property
dispute, the appropriate remedy has been
provided under the provisions of the
Criminal Procedure Code where the power
has been conferred upon the Magistrate
and not the District Magistrate. Moreover,
in the present case the provisions of the
Criminal Procedure Code has not been
followed.

21. The question whether an
administrative officer can exercise his
administrative power in the matter of the
property dispute fell for consideration
before a Division Bench in the case of
Devmani v. State of U.P. and others,
2019 (1) ADJ 870 (DB). The Division
Bench has held as under:

"6. In addition to above, we find
that the Sub Divisional Magistrate being
an administrative Officer has no power to
issue any injunction order against any
private
person
to
interfere
in
the
possession of the other person. In case an
application was filed before the Sub
Divisional Magistrate in respect of the
property dispute, the appropriate course
open to him was ask to the parties to
approach the appropriate Court to resolve
their
dispute.
The
Sub
Divisional
magistrate has assumed the jurisdiction of
1944 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
a Civil/Revenue Court and has passed the
restrain order. To our repeated query to
the learned counsel for the petitioner to
point out the authority of law under which
the Sub Divisional Magistrate has passed
the order but he failed to point out any
provision of the law which cloth the
administrative
officer
to
pass
the
injunction order.

7. The experience reveals that
the
Sub
Divisional
Magistrates
are
passing such type of order in a large
number of cases. We find that the orders
passed by the Administrative Officer
interfering in the matter of property
dispute where title dispute is involved are
wholly
without
jurisdiction.
An
administrative officer cannot direct the
Police to help a party in title dispute."

22. In the present case also the
District Magistrate admittedly has passed
the administrative order in respect of the
property dispute on the ground that there
was apprehension of breach of peace.

23. As discussed above, in such
situation the District Magistrate has no
jurisdiction to pass any order. Only
recourse to the provisions under Cr.P.C
can be taken. On this ground also the order
of the District Magistrate is vitiated.

24.

Lastly,
the
petitioner
in
paragraph nos. 20, 21 and 22 of the writ
petition has averred that the Secretary of
the Azamgarh Development Authority has
cancelled the map without any notice or
opportunity. This averment has not been
denied by the District Magistrate in his
personal affidavit or by the private
respondent. Moreover, from the impugned
order itself it is evident that the order has
been passed without furnishing any
opportunity to the petitioner. It is well
settled law that an order which has civil
consequences
must
be
passed
after
furnishing opportunity to the affected
persons. In this case no opportunity has
been afforded to the petitioner and thus,
the order stands vitiated on this ground
also.

25. In view of the above, the
impugned order dated 02.11.2018 is set
aside. The matter is remitted back to the
Secretary,
Azamgarh
Development
Authority to pass a fresh order after
furnishing opportunity to the petitioner
and the private respondents herein. The
said exercise be undertaken expeditiously
preferably within three months from the
date of communication of this order.

26. The writ petition stands allowed.
----------
(2020)1ILR 1943

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.11.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.

Writ-C No. 13347 of 2018

Smt. Nanhi Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Praveen Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Pankaj Kumar Gupta, Sri
Pradeep Kumar Rai

A. Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal
of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members)
Enquiry Rules, 1997 - Rule 2 (c) and Rule
4 - Suspension - ground of challenge -
serious
irregularities
committed
in