# Umesh Chand and others v. Sub Divisional Officer, Tahsil Nichlaul District Maharajganj & others

- **Citation:** (2006) 3 ILRA 1000
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-05-16
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54992 of 2005
- **Bench:** S.N. Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/umesh-chand-and-others-v-sub-divisional-officer-tahsil-nichlaul-district-40705
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art. 226-Practice
of Procedure-proper dress-the Revenue
Officers
while
performing
judicial
functions-must
wear
proper
dress.
General mandamus issued for strict
compliance to all the revenue Courts of
the state.

Held: Para 5

I have searched various circulars/D.Os
containing various directions issued in
compliance of the orders of the Court for
direction if any, to the Presiding officers
to wear proper dress while sitting in
Court
performing
judicial
functions.
Since
these
presiding
officers
are
performing
judicial
functions,
it
is
incumbent upon them to wear proper
dress besides observing in compliance
the various other norms prescribed
there-for. A direction to this effect may
be issued to all the Presiding officers
manning the revenue courts in the State.

## Text

1000 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
award lesser punishment after recording
reasons. It is also to be seen that in the
present case the accused was convicted
for sale of adulterated flour which took
place in the year 1983. Now the accused
revisionist is aged about 50 years and as
such, I am of the view that taking into
consideration this long gap of 23 years
between the date of the incident and the
date of judgment by this Court as well as
the present age of the accused, it would
not be appropriate to send him to Jail
again for undergoing the remaining period
of imprisonment. As such I am of the
view that instead of ordering him to
undergo remaining part of sentence of
imprisonment awarded to him the period
of imprisonment should be reduced to the
period already undergone by him and the
amount of fine should be enhanced to
Rs.2000/-.

8. I, therefore, partly allow this
revision. The conviction of accused
revisionist under section 7/16 of P.F. Act
is maintained but the sentence awarded to
him
is
modified
and
taking
into
inconsideration
that
the
accused
revisionist
has
already
undergone
imprisonment for a period of more than
two weeks in this case, I order that the
sentence
regarding
award
of
imprisonment shall stand modified to the
period
of
imprisonment
already
undergone by him provided he pays
enhanced fine of Rs.2000/-. He is allowed
two months' time to pay this amount of
fine and if any part of fine has already
been paid by him that shall be liable to be
adjusted towards this amount. If the fine
is not deposited by him he would have to
undergo the sentence as ordered by the
trial court and confirmed by the appellate
court.

 Revision Partly Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.05.2006

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

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54992 of 2005

Umesh Chand and others ...Petitioners
Versus
Sub Divisional Officer, Tahsil Nichlaul District
Maharajganj & others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri A.K. Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India, Art. 226-Practice
of Procedure-proper dress-the Revenue
Officers
while
performing
judicial
functions-must
wear
proper
dress.
General mandamus issued for strict
compliance to all the revenue Courts of
the state.

Held: Para 5

I have searched various circulars/D.Os
containing various directions issued in
compliance of the orders of the Court for
direction if any, to the Presiding officers
to wear proper dress while sitting in
Court
performing
judicial
functions.
Since
these
presiding
officers
are
performing
judicial
functions,
it
is
incumbent upon them to wear proper
dress besides observing in compliance
the various other norms prescribed
there-for. A direction to this effect may
be issued to all the Presiding officers
manning the revenue courts in the State.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.N. Srivastava, J.)

1. In the matter of directions
contained in order dated 11.8.2005 the
text of which was that revenue courts
3 All] Umesh Chand and others V. Sub-Divisional Officer and others
1001
would hold courts for 4 days in a week,
and also to adhere to the court hours i.e.
between 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., the case was
taken up on 1.5.2006 on which date, order
was passed calling upon the Chairman
Board of Revenue to formulate guidelines
capable of enforcing obedience to the
directions of the Court. The operative
portion of the said order is excerpted
below.

"In view of the above, the Chairman
Board
of
Revenue
may
formulate
guidelines capable of enforcing obedience
to the directions of the Court and also
propose action in case the direction of the
Court remain un-acted upon."

2. On 15 May 2006, learned Chief
Standing Counsel appeared to convey that
Chairman Board of Revenue was not able
to attend the court but at the same time, he
has apprised that the Chairman has
formulated requisite guidelines to enforce
compliance of the order of the Court in
the strictest sense. The learned Chief
Standing Counsel produced copies of
various orders passed by the Chairman,
Board of Revenue unto this date. To begin
with, he drew attention of the Court to
D.O. letter dated 11.5.2006 addressed to
all the Divisional Commissioners and the
District Magistrates in the State of U.P. in
which are encapsulated the peremptory
directions to ensure that the Presiding
officers manning the various revenue
courts sit in court for performing judicial
functions for 4 days in a week between 10
a.m. to 5 p.m. This Court by means of
order dated 15.5.2006 called upon the
standing counsel to bring on record all the
orders passed by Chairman Board of
Revenue by filing affidavit of an officer
of the Board of Revenue. Accordingly, an
affidavit sworn by Jai Prakash Tripathi,
Addl.
Land
Reforms
commissioner,
Board of Revenue U.P. Lucknow has
been filed. From a perusal of affidavit and
annexures thereto, it would transpire that
the D.O. letter dated 11.5.2006 addressed
to all the Divisional Commissioner and
District Magistrates in the State of U.P.,
besides
reiterating
directions
issued
earlier also embodies expression of
concern besides terming it objectionable
that directions of the Court are not being
strictly observed in compliance.

3. It may be recalled here that this
Court had issued a writ of mandamus by
means
of
order
dated
11.8.2005
commanding the Board of Revenue to
issue appropriate instructions by way of
circular that during the days which may
be ear-marked for performance of judicial
functions the authorities may not be
assigned any administrative functions
except in an unforeseen emergency
coming into existence. Pursuant to the
above directions, circular dated 6th Oct
2005 was issued addressed to all the
District Magistrates prescribing therein
quota of judicial work to be given in a
month by different revenue authorities
including
District
Magistrate,
Addl.
District
Magistrate
(Administration),
Addl. District Magistrate (Finance and
Revenue),
Sub
divisional
Officer,
Tahsildar and Naib Tahsildar attended
with direction to abide by the schedule
fixed in terms of the directions of the
Court. By means of another circular
issued on 28.11.2005, the Board of
Revenue prescribed quota for disposal of
cases by the Commissioner, the Addl.
Commissioner (administration) and the
Addl. Commissioner (Judicial) besides
reiterating directions contained in the
earlier circular. Yet another D.O. letter
was issued on 14.12.2005 prescribing
1002 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
days on which judicial work was to be
performed by revenue authorities attended
with further direction to keep adherence
to the days and time fixed by earlier
circulars and also to quota prescribed for
disposal for them in a month.

4. It would thus appear that the
Board
of
Revenue
has
issued
comprehensive directions from time to
time in observance of the orders of this
Court. However, considering that the
directions about holding courts for 4 days
and adhering to the court hours between
10 a.m. to 5 p.m. are not being strictly
followed as would be manifested from the
D.Os. and circulars issued by the Board of
Revenue, I feel called to call upon the
Board of Revenue to collect details of the
disposal month-wise in the shape of
monthly statements for the period from
Sept 2005 upto June 2006 decided by
subordinate revenue courts on merits, to
be precise, from Divisional commissioner
for the works performed by Addl.
Commissioner (Administration) and Addl.
Commissioner
(Revenue)
and
from
District
Magistrate
for
the
works[
performed by the District Magistrates
themselves
including
Addl.
District
Magistrate, S.D.Os, Tahsildar and Naib
Tahsildar. The details so received may be
short-listed by Board of Revenue for
onward transmission and perusal of the
Court.

5.

I
have
searched
various
circulars/D.Os
containing
various
directions issued in compliance of the
orders of the Court for direction if any, to
the Presiding officers to wear proper dress
while sitting in Court performing judicial
functions. Since these presiding officers
are performing judicial functions, it is
incumbent upon them to wear proper
dress besides observing in compliance the
various other norms prescribed there-for.
A direction to this effect may be issued to
all the Presiding officers manning the
revenue courts in the State.

6. Since further details have been
sought from the Board of Revenue as
enumerated above, with a view to
monitoring compliance with the directions
of the Court, list this matter on Sept
11,2006.

7. Office is directed to supply
certified copy of this order to Sri Sanjeev
Goswami, learned Standing counsel High
Court Allahabad within a week from
today.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.07.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE V.M. SAHAI, J.
THE HON'BLE VIKRAM NATH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.22497 of 2004

Dr. Rajesh Kumar Tewari
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents
With
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.23534 of 2004

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vishnu Behari Tewari

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Pradeep Kumar
Sri C.B. Yadav
Sri H.N. Singh
Sri S.N. Singh
S.C.

U.P.
Public
Service
Commission
(Reservation of Physically Handicapped)