# unauthorized persons to work in the office and compliance report be sent to the court

- **Citation:** C.L.No.11/
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 1975-10-08
- **Case number:** C.L.No.11/
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/unauthorized-persons-to-work-in-the-office-and-compliance-report-be-sent-to-the-163055
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

118
the subordinate courts allowing unauthorized persons to work in the offices, handling the
government work and records. The Hon'ble court has further observed that the matter is
quite serious and calls for immediate and urgent action and where-ever unauthorized
persons are working, disciplinary action be initiated and criminal prosecution be taken
against such persons. Also, stern action be taken against that employee who permits
unauthorized persons to work in the office and compliance report be sent to the court.
 I am, therefore, directed to send herewith a copy of order dated 13.8.2004 passed
in C.M. Writ petition No.32455 of 2004-Vimal Kishore Nigam Vs. State of U.P. and
others and to request you that identity cards be issued to each and every employee of the
Judgeship and to ensure that unauthorized persons are not allowed to enter into the
offices of Judgeship and that a pass system be introduced to check such unauthorized
entry in courts and offices.
 I am also to add that the contents of the circular letter be brought to the notice of
all the Judicial officers as well as all concerned in your Judgeship for strict compliance.
57.
MEASURES REGARDING SUPERINTENDENCE OVER THE JUDICIAL
OFFICERS WORKING IN FAMILY COURTS.
C.L.No.11/ 2005 Dated: 24- March, 2005
 I am directed to say that a upon a careful consideration of matter regarding
superintendence over the judicial Officers working in family Courts the Hon'ble court
has been pleased to provide following measures:-
1.
 Every Principal Judge Additional Judge or other Judge of a Family Court shall
send his daily sitting register to the District Judge so that as to reach him latest by
10.30 a.m. each day for his information and initials, else he will be treated and
marked absent for the day.
2.
Every principal Judge Additional Judge or other Judge of a family Court shall
attend the meetings/monthly meetings of all the presiding officers of civil and
Criminal court that are called by the District judge in compliance with Court's
Circular letter nos. 129/Admin (b) dated 8th October 1975, 4 dated 3rd February,
1976and 86 dated 31st may 1976.
3.
The District Judge having administrative control shall record annual/special
remarks in the confidential record if the Principal Judge, additional Judge or other
judge of a family court.
I am, therefore, to request that the measures so provided be brought to the notice
of every Principal Judge, Additional Judge or other Judge of a family court under you
administrative control for compliance faithfully and punctually.
58. CIRCULATION OF COPY OF THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED
BY THE HON'BLE COURT IN FIRST APPEAL NO.271 OF 2005 -MOTI
LAL VS. BHAGWAN DAS.
C.L.No.24/ 2005 dated 8th August,2005.
 I am directed to send herewith a copy of Judgment and order dated 4.3.2005
passed by Hon'ble Court (Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli , J. and Hon'ble G.P.Srivastava, J.) in
119
First appeal No271 of 2005-Motilal Vs. Bhagwan das for information and strict
compliance. I am further add that the direction given by the Hon'ble court in aforesaid
Judgment and order may kindly be brought to the notice of all the Judicial officers in the
Judgeship under your administrative control for their information and guidance faithfully
and punctually.
(See for Judgment 2005 (60) A.L.R.7)
59. Compliance of the directions as contained in the order dated 21.4.2005 in
writ petition No.3879 (M/S) of 2004-Pawan vs. Addl. District Judge Court
No.1District Lucknow and others.
C.L.No.25/ 2005: dated: 9th August, 2005
 While enclosing herewith a copy of order dated 21.4.2005 in Writ Petition No.
3879 (M/S) of 2004- Pawan Vs. Additional District Judge, Court No. 1 Lucknow and
others, I am directed to say that Hon'ble Court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Devi Prasad Singh)
has been pleased to observe that ―the Government authorities have got no right to send
letters to the district Judge or Presiding Officer of the Subordinate Court for appropriate
action, behind the back of the plaintiff or defendant as the case may be. In case they have
got any grievance, then appropriate application should be moved through government
counsel in accordance to the procedure provided under the Rules of the Court, Code of
Criminal Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure or any other law time being enforced. There
is separation of power between the executive and judiciary. Executive authorities do not
have have right to send a letter straightway to the District Judge for appropriate action
relating to the controversy which is subjudice before the subordinate court. Similarly, the
District Judges should not forward a letter of the executive authorities to his subordinate
Presiding Officer of a court relating to the dispute which is pending before him/her on
Judicial side.‖

 The Hon'ble court has also been pleased to direct to circulate the following
portion of the aforedetailed order dated 21.4.2005 for compliance and appropriate
action:-
―Relating to the property in question, petitioner has filed a regular suit No.
98/2002 against opposite party No.7, which was decreed on 26th of April, 2002. The copy
of Judgment and decree have been filed as Annexure Nos. 4&5 to the writ petition.
Feeling aggrieved with the conduct of opposite party No.6, petitioner has filed another
suit registered as Regular Suit No. 59/2003 along with the application for temporary
injunction moved under Order 39 Rule 1&2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The
application for temporary injunction was rejected vides order dated 20th of April 2004.
Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has preferred an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code
of Civil Procedure which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated
13th of August, 2004. While assailing the impugned order learned counsel for the
petitioner has pleaded in Para 29 of the writ petition that several judgments cited by
learned counsel for the petitioner were not considered by the learned. Appellate Court. It
has been further submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that appeal has been
dismissed on account of persuasion of the district authorities. Necessary facts have been
pleaded in Para 30 of the writ petition. Copy of a letter sent by Civil Judge (Jr. Division)
South, Lucknow dated 21st of July, 2004 bearing the endorsement of the District Judge
120
Lucknow dated 9th August, 2004 has been filed as Annexure No. 33 to the writ petition,
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and keeping in view the seriousness of
the allegations on record, Lower Court Record was summoned which has been produced
before this court today . The record shows that the Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow has
written a letter to the Superintendent of police, Trans Gomti, Lucknow for appropriate
action against the petitioner relating to the property in question. It appears that the district
authorities had sent a letter to the District Judge, Lucknow, which was forwarded by him
to the Civil Judge (Jr, Division) South, Lucknow. The Civil Judge (Jr.Division) South,
Lucknow has submitted a report to the District Judge, Lucknow indicating therein that
she had already decided petitioner's application for temporary injunction on merit against
which an appeal has been preferred and is pending before the 1st Additional District
Judge, Lucknow. By his endorsement dated 9th of August, 2004, The District Judge,
Lucknow has forwarded the letter of the district authorities for appropriate action to the
1st Addl. District Judge, Lucknow. Thereafter the 1st Addl. District Judge, Lucknow has
dismissed the appeal by the impugned order dated 13th of August, 2004. Accordingly,
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner submits that petitioner's
application for temporary injunction as well appeal have been dismissed by the court
below under the influence of the district authorities. Learned Counsel for the petitioner
further submits that the district authorities have got no right to send the letter relating to a
controversy which is pending on judicial side before a subordinate court. Accordingly,
the further submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that neither the District
Judge, Lucknow, nor the 1st Additional District Judge, Lucknow, was competent to take
notice of the letter sent by the district authorities, behind the back of the petitioner. The
arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner has got force.
It is a settled law that justice should not only be done but seems to be done.
Independence, honestly, integrity and fairness in the procedure, in the administration of
justice keeps the people's faith in our system intact. The Government authorities have got
no right to send letter to the District Judge or Presiding Officer of the subordinate court
for appropriate action behind the back of the plaintiff or defendant as the case may be. In
case, they have not any grievance, then appropriate application should be moved through
government counsel in accordance to the procedure provided under the rule of the court
, Code of Criminal Procedure. Code of Civil Procedure or any other law time being
enforced. There is separation of power between the executive and judiciary. Executive
authorities do to have got right to send a letter straightway to the district Judge for
appropriate action relating to the controversy which is subjudice before the subordinate
court. Similarity the district Judges should not forward a letter of the executive authorities
to his subordinate presiding Officer of a court relating to the dispute which is pending
before him/her on judicial side. Although, administration of Justice draws its legal
sanction through constitution, its creditability rest in the faith of the people. Indispensable
to that faith is independence of the Judiciary. Any interference by the executive to a
dispute which is subjudice before a court without following the procedure provided by
law shall amount to interference with the administration of justice. That is why
consistently, Hon'ble Supreme Court had ruled that independence of our judicial system
should be preserved on all costs. A formal reference may be given to the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case reported in 1981 supp SCC 87- S.P.Gupta Vs.
Union of India 1993 (4) SCC- Advocates on Record Association vs. Union of India 1993
121
SCC-288- All India Judges Association Vs. Union of India 1973 (4) SCC 225-
Keshawananda Bharati Vs. State of Kerala, (2004) 4 Supreme court cases 640- State of
Bihar and another Vs. Bal Mukund Sah and Others, 2000 (3)SCC 171- Om Prakash
Jaiswal Vs. D.K. Mittal, 2004 (7) SCC 729-R.V.A. Judicial Officers, (2002) 4 Supreme
court cases 524- Gauhati High Court and another Vs. Kuladhar Phbukan and Another and
other cases.

To preserve the independence of Judiciary the constitution does not confer upon
the executive to exercise its disciplinary power and jurisdiction in respect of judicial
services. The control over the district courts and its subordinate courts thereof rests only
in the High Court In the case of State of Bihar and Another Vs. Bal Mukund Sah and
Others (Supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court had held as under:-
1.
―The Constitution-makers had given a special status and treatment to the Judicial
Service.
2.
That the independence of Judiciary is ensured which cannot be interfered with
either by an executive action or by an act of the Legislature.‖

Keeping in view the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court and to check
recurrence of such incidence an ad-interim Mandamus is issued for compliance by the
subordinate courts in the following manners:-
1.
Any application or representation submitted by the district authorities or other
government authorities to the District Judges or to the Presiding Officer of a
Subordinate court on administrative side which covers a dispute pending in the
subordinate. court on judicial side shall not be entertained. All such applications
shall be forwarded to Hon'ble The Chief Justice and the Administrative Judge of
the District for appropriate order/action.
2.
The district authorities or government officers have got no right to move an
application behind the back of the plaintiff or defendant as the case may be for
appropriate action to the District Judge or to the Presiding Officer to the
subordinate court except in accordance to the procedure provided by law i.e.
under rules of the court, Code of Criminal procedure, Code of Civil Procedure or
any other statutory law time being enforced.
3.
In case, administrative authorities approach for any favour or action to the District
Judge or other Presiding Officer of a subordinate court by making oral request,
such request shall be converted in to writing and shall be forwarded by the said
District Judge or the Presiding Officer of the court to Hon'ble the Chief
Justice/Administrative Judge for information and appropriate orders‖
I am, therefore, directed to communicate to you the aforesaid directions of the
Hon'ble Court with the request that the contents of and directions in the order dated
21.4.2005 be kindly brought to the notice of all Judicial Officers in the judiciary under
your administrative control, for information and strict compliance.
To ensure strict compliance of the directions passed in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.
312 of 1994 - Supreme Court Legal Services Committee Vs. Union of India & Ors.
regarding supply of free copy of Judgment of the Session Court to the
prisoner/convict within 30 days of the pronouncement of judgment.
122
C.L. No. 20/2009 Admin. (G-II): Dated: 30.04.2009

While sending herewith a copy of letter No. F-8267/SCLSC/94 dated 07.08.2008
of Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, New Delhi. I am directed to say that, the
Hon'ble Apex Court in its Order dated 18.08.1998 passed in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.
312 of 1994 Supreme Court Legal Services Committee Vs. Union of India and Others,
has been pleased to issue following directions:-
―(i) that they will, by issuing administrative orders/instructions ensure that every
prisoner/convict is provided with free copy of the judgment of the Sessions Judge
or the High Court in her/his case or matter within 30 days of the pronouncement
of such judgment and that the Registry of the Court concerned will personally
endorse such copy to the Superintendent of the Jail for forwarding the same to the
petitioner.‖

I am, therefore, to request you to kindly issue an Administrative order/instruction
to all the judicial officers under your administrative control to ensure that every
prisoner/convict shall be provided with a free copy of judgment of Sessions Judge in
his/her case within 30 days of the pronouncement of such judgment and the Court
concerned shall personally endorse a copy of such judgment to the superintendent of the
jail for forwarding the same to the petitioner.

I am further to request you to kindly bring the contents of this Circular Letter to
all concerned in your Judgeship for strict compliance in letter and spirit.
Reg. All the Public Information Officers nominated in the public authority and their
units be directed to brief about the complete details of the Right to Information Act
to their successors at the time of handing over charge and work pertaining to Right
to Information Act be handed over separately on account of their transfer.
C.L. No. 42/2009/Admin. ̳G-II' Dated: Allahabad 2.9.2009
The Government of Uttar Pradesh has brought to the notice of Hon'ble Court vide
letter no. 546/43-2-2009 dated 25.05.2009 that the Right to Information Act, 2005 has
been enforced for smooth flow of information and to ensure the reach of citizen to
information under the control of public authorities & to bring transparency in the
functioning of public authorities. Public Information Officer/Assistant Public Information
Officer/Appellate Authority play important role in the effective implementation of the
provision of Right to Information Act, 2005.
Therefore, I am directed to say that, the Hon'ble Court has resolved that, all the
Public Information Officers nominated in the public authority and their units be directed
to brief about the complete details of the Right to Information Act to their successors at
the time of handing over charge and work pertaining to Right to Information Act be
handed over separately on account of their transfer.
I am to request you to kindly ensure that the above directions are complied with
by all the concerned under your administrative control, in letter and spirit.
==============
123
CHAPTER - X
CIVIL CASES

1.
JURISDICTION
C.L. No. 18/IV-g-27 Admn. (A) dated 29th January, 1977
It invites attention to section 27 of the Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Reforms and
Amendment) Act, 1976 (U.P Act No. 57 of 1976), which has come into force from
January 1, 1977 and says that all Munsif shall have the jurisdiction to hear suits of the
valuation of up to five thousand rupees.
C.L. No. 8/IVF-80 Admn. (A) dated 18th February, 1981
A full powered Munsif, according to the seniority at a particular station, should be
posted in the institution court so that he may try suits of valuation between Rs. 5,000/-
and Rs. 10000/-. If there are not enough civil suits of such valuation to keep the officer
fully engaged, he may be assigned criminal cases also.
New Munsifs, who have no criminal powers, should be assigned civil suits of the
valuation up to Rs. 5,000/- only.
C.L. No. 57/IV-g-241/Admin. (A) dated 28th June, 1977
It encloses H.C. Notification No. 572/IVg-24/Admn.(A) Dated 28th June, 1977
conferring on each Munsif specified in the list jurisdiction of a Judge of Court of Small
causes under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, for the trial of suits
cognizable by such Courts up to the value not exceeding one thousand Rupees, within the
local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court where he is posted.
C.L. No. 108/IVg-24 dated 28th June, 1977
It informs that the High Court has conferred on all the Civil Judges, the
jurisdiction of a Judge of a Court of Small Causes under the Provincial Small Cause
Courts Act 1887 (Act IX of 1887), for the trial of suits up to the value not exceeding two
thousand rupees, by notification no. 571/IVg-24 dated 28thJune, 1977.
(i)
Transfer of pending cases of valuation between Rs. 10,001/-to Rs. 25,000/-
from the Courts of Civil Judges.
C.L.No. 9/IVg-24/ Admn.(G). dated : January 21, 1991
I am directed to invite your attention to Court's Notification No. 64/IVg-27, dated
8.2.1991 raising the pecuniary jurisdiction of Munsif to Rs. 25,000/- in view of
Amendment of Section 19(2) of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 by
U.P .Act No.17 of 1991 and to say that it has come in the notice of the Court that some
District Judges are not transferring the cases of the valuation up to Rs. 25,000/- from the
Courts of Civil Judges to the Courts of Munsifs having the enhanced pecuniary
jurisdiction of Rs. 25,001/-. The matter has been again examined by the court and the
Court has decided that all pending cases up to the valuation of Rs. 25,000/- in the Court
of Civil Judges be immediately transferred to Courts of Munsifs who are competent to