# Vimal Kumar & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 2 ILRA 147
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-01-28
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17732 of 2020
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Dr. Gautam Chowdhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vimal-kumar-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47505
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
Section 167 - Judicial custody remand of an
accused involved in offences punishable upto 7
years imprisonment may be granted by the
Magistrate after he satisfied himself that the
application for remand moved by the Police
Officer has been made in a bonafide manner
and the reasons for seeking remand mentioned
in the case diary are in accordance with the
requirements of Section 41(1)(b) and 41-A of
Cr.P.C. and there is a concrete material in
existence to substantiate the grounds for
seeking remand.

B. Bail applications to be considered
expeditiously- Where the accused himself
surrenders or where investigation has been
148 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
completed and the Magistrate needs to take the
accused to judicial custody as provided u/S
170(1) and Section 41(1)(b)(ii)(e) Cr.P.C., the
Magistrates and Sessions Court to consider the
bails expeditiously and not to mechanically
refuse the same, especially in short sentence
cases punishable upto 7 years imprisonment
unless the allegations are grave and there is any
legal impediment in allowing the bail. Lal
Kamlendra Pratap Singh v St.of U.P. (2009)4
SCC 437 and Sheoraj Singh@Chuttan v St.of
U.P. & ors. 2009(65) ACC 781 followed.

C. Interim Bail.- The facility of releasing the
accused on interim bail pending consideration of
regular bail may also be accorded by the
Magistrate and Sessions Judges in appropriate
cases.

D. Arrest of the accused: Arrest of the
accused in a mechanical or malafide manner in
contravention of Section 41(1)(b) and 41-A
Cr.P.C.---Where the Magistrate is satisfied that a
particular police officer has been persistently
arresting the accused in cases punishable upto 7
years term in a mechanical or malafide and
dishonest
manner
in
contravention
of
requirements of Section 41(1)(b) and 41-A of
Cr.P.C. he may furnish information to Registrar
of the High Court through District Judge so that
appropriate directions may be issued to the
D.G.P. to take action against such errant police
officers.

E. Registrar General of the High Court directed
to issue a Circular with directions to the
Sessions Court and the Magistrates to monitor
and oversee the applications for remand sought
by the arresting Police Officer.

F. Issue of compliance with Section 41(1)(b) and
41-A Cr.P.C. and the directions of this court in
this regard may also be discussed in the
monthly meetings of District Judges with the
administration and superior police officer.

G. Arrest for offence u/S 498-A I.P.C.- The
St.Government to instruct it's Police Officers not
to automatically arrest a person when a case
u/S 498-A I.P.C. is registered but to satisfy
themselves about the necessity for arrest.

H. Section 41-A Cr.P.C.-Notice of appearance in
terms of Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. be served on
the accused within 2 weeks from the date of
institution of the case which may be extended
by the S.P. of the District for reasons to be
recorded in writing.

I. Balancing individual liberty and social order.---
In Writ Petition(Civil) No. 73 of 2015, Social
Action Forum for Manav Adhikar & anr.r v UOI,
Ministry of Law and Justice and in the matter of
Anand Tiwari v St.of U.P. & ors., Criminal Misc.
Writ Petition No. 17641 of 2020 and Arnesh
Kumar v St.of Bihar (2014)8 SCC 273 the Police
authorities have been directed to strike the
balance between individual liberty and social
order.

Petition allowed. (E-12)

## Text

2 All. Vimal Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
147
learned
Magistrate
which
may
be
considered by the learned Magistrate in
accordance with the known procedure;

xiii) The power under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide
power requires the court to be cautious. It
casts an onerous and more diligent duty on
the court;

xiv) However, at the same time,
the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to
the parameters of quashing and the selfrestraint imposed by law, more particularly
the parameters laid down by this Court in
the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan
Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash
the FIR/complaint; and

xv) When a prayer for quashing
the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the
court when it exercises the power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider
whether or not the allegations in the FIR
disclose the commission of a cognizable
offence and is not required to consider on
merits whether the allegations make out a
cognizable offence or not and the court has
to permit the investigating agency/police to
investigate the allegations in the FIR".

27. The only exceptions are where no
cognizable offence or offence of any kind is
disclosed in the first information report the
Court will not permit an investigation to go
'on', or where non-interference would result
in miscarriage of justice the Court may
interfere at the stage of investigation of
offence.
Regard
being
had
to
the
parameters
of
quashing
the
first
information report laid down by the Apex
Court in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure
Pvt.
Ltd.10,
noticing
its
previous
judgments in R.P. Kapur vs. State of
Punjab11 and State of Haryana vs.
Bhajanlal12, we find that no case is made
out for quashing of the present FIR as it
cannot be said that the FIR does not
disclose commission of any cognizable
offence or offence of any kind.

The relief of quashing of the first
information report, therefore, deserves to
be refused.

The writ petition is, accordingly,
dismissed.

No order as to costs.
----------
(2022)02ILR A147
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.01.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17732 of 2020

Vimal Kumar & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ajay Vikram Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
Section 167 - Judicial custody remand of an
accused involved in offences punishable upto 7
years imprisonment may be granted by the
Magistrate after he satisfied himself that the
application for remand moved by the Police
Officer has been made in a bonafide manner
and the reasons for seeking remand mentioned
in the case diary are in accordance with the
requirements of Section 41(1)(b) and 41-A of
Cr.P.C. and there is a concrete material in
existence to substantiate the grounds for
seeking remand.

B. Bail applications to be considered
expeditiously- Where the accused himself
surrenders or where investigation has been
148 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
completed and the Magistrate needs to take the
accused to judicial custody as provided u/S
170(1) and Section 41(1)(b)(ii)(e) Cr.P.C., the
Magistrates and Sessions Court to consider the
bails expeditiously and not to mechanically
refuse the same, especially in short sentence
cases punishable upto 7 years imprisonment
unless the allegations are grave and there is any
legal impediment in allowing the bail. Lal
Kamlendra Pratap Singh v St.of U.P. (2009)4
SCC 437 and Sheoraj Singh@Chuttan v St.of
U.P. & ors. 2009(65) ACC 781 followed.

C. Interim Bail.- The facility of releasing the
accused on interim bail pending consideration of
regular bail may also be accorded by the
Magistrate and Sessions Judges in appropriate
cases.

D. Arrest of the accused: Arrest of the
accused in a mechanical or malafide manner in
contravention of Section 41(1)(b) and 41-A
Cr.P.C.---Where the Magistrate is satisfied that a
particular police officer has been persistently
arresting the accused in cases punishable upto 7
years term in a mechanical or malafide and
dishonest
manner
in
contravention
of
requirements of Section 41(1)(b) and 41-A of
Cr.P.C. he may furnish information to Registrar
of the High Court through District Judge so that
appropriate directions may be issued to the
D.G.P. to take action against such errant police
officers.

E. Registrar General of the High Court directed
to issue a Circular with directions to the
Sessions Court and the Magistrates to monitor
and oversee the applications for remand sought
by the arresting Police Officer.

F. Issue of compliance with Section 41(1)(b) and
41-A Cr.P.C. and the directions of this court in
this regard may also be discussed in the
monthly meetings of District Judges with the
administration and superior police officer.

G. Arrest for offence u/S 498-A I.P.C.- The
St.Government to instruct it's Police Officers not
to automatically arrest a person when a case
u/S 498-A I.P.C. is registered but to satisfy
themselves about the necessity for arrest.

H. Section 41-A Cr.P.C.-Notice of appearance in
terms of Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. be served on
the accused within 2 weeks from the date of
institution of the case which may be extended
by the S.P. of the District for reasons to be
recorded in writing.

I. Balancing individual liberty and social order.---
In Writ Petition(Civil) No. 73 of 2015, Social
Action Forum for Manav Adhikar & anr.r v UOI,
Ministry of Law and Justice and in the matter of
Anand Tiwari v St.of U.P. & ors., Criminal Misc.
Writ Petition No. 17641 of 2020 and Arnesh
Kumar v St.of Bihar (2014)8 SCC 273 the Police
authorities have been directed to strike the
balance between individual liberty and social
order.

Petition allowed. (E-12)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the
State.

2. This writ petition has been filed by
the petitioners with the following prayers:

(I) issue a writ order or direction
in the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned First Information Report dated
28.11.2020 lodged by respondent No. 4 in
case crime No. 824 of 2020, under sections
498-A
IPC
and
section
3⁄4
Dowry
Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali
Nagar, District Etah.

(II) issue a writ order or direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents not to arrest the petitioners in case
crime No. 824 of 2020, under sections 498-A
IPC and section 3⁄4 Dowry Prohibition Act,
Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Etah.

(III) issue any other writ order or
direction In the like nature which this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in
the circumstances of the case.
2 All. Vimal Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
149

(IV) award the costs of the writ
petition to the petitioners.

3. The brief facts of this case are that
the marriage of daughter of respondent no.
4 namely Priyanka was fixed with the
petitioner No. 1 by which on 7.6.2020 the
Ring ceremony was held and during this
period about 6.5 lacs rupees was given by
the respondent no. 4 to the petitioners. It is
further alleged that on 25.11.2020 all the
petitioners demanded a Creta Car and
stated if said demand could not be fulfilled
then they would not solemnize the
marriage.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the petitioners that the marriage of
daughter of respondent no. 4 was fixed
with the petitioner no. 1 and after Ring
ceremony respondent no. 4 with the ulterior
motive,
demanded
money
from
the
petitioners for solemnizing the marriage
with her daughter with petitioner no. 1 and
stated that if the same was not fulfilled then
petitioners would be falsely dragged in a
criminal
case,
present
malicious
prosecution has been launched by the
respondent no. 4.

5. It is next submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioner that all the
offences
are
punishable
with
incarceration below 7 years but the police
of concerned police station is regularly
visiting the house of petitioners under the
influence of respondents No. 4. It is
further
submitted
that
under
the
provisions of Sections 204, S41(1)(b),
S.41(1)(b)(ii)(e), S.41(a) of the Cr.P.C.
police
cannot
arrest
the
petitioners
without giving notice and without and
without collecting any credible evidence
against the petitioners the police can not
arrest the accused.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners
has invited our attention to the provisions
embodied in sections 204, S41(1)(b),
S.41(1)(b)(ii)(e), S.41(a) of the Cr.P.C. the
judgment of this Court in 2011 0 Supreme
(All) 2785 (Shaukin Vs. State Of U.P. and
Others) has been relied and has placed
reliance on Social Action Forum for
Manav Adhikar and another Vs. Union
of India, Ministry of law and Justice and
others passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No.
73 of 2015.

7. We proceed to explain the import
and meaning of the amended provisions
41(I)(b) and 41 A Cr.P.C., and to give some
illustrations where accused could be
arrested straightaway on the lodging of the
FIR,
and
other
illustrations
where
immediate arrests may not be needed,
because we think that in many cases the
police is still routinely proceeding to rrest
accused persons even if they are involved
in offences punishable with up to 7 years
imprisonment, in contravention of the
express terms of Section 41(I)(b) or 41 A
Cr.P.C.

7. It would be useful to extract
the material provisions, Section 41(I)(b) or
41 A, which have been introduced by Act
No. 5 of 2009, with effect from 1.11.2010
an also section 170(I) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, here:

41. When police may arrest
without warrant.--(I) Any police officer
may without an order from a Magistrate
and without a warrant, arrest any person----
--------

(a)---------------------

(b) against whom a reasonable
complaint has been made, or credible
information has been received, or a
reasonable suspicion exists that he has
committed a cognizable offence punishable
150 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
with imprisonment for a term which may
be less than seven years or which may
extend to seven years whether with or
without fine, if the following conditions are
satisfied, namely:

(I) the police office has reason to
believe on the basis of such complaint,
information, or suspicion that such person
has committed the said offence;

(ii) the police office is satisfied
that such arrest is necessary----

(a) to prevent such person from
committing any further offence; or

(b) for proper investigation of the
offence; or

(C) to prevent such person from
causing the evidence of te offence to
disappear or tampering with such evidence
in any manner: or

(d) to prevent such person from
making any inducement, threat or promise
to any person acquainted with the facts of
the case so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to the
police officer: or

(e) as unless such person is
arrested,
his
presence
in
the
Court
whenever required cannot be ensured,

and the police officer shall record
while making such arrest, his reasons in
writing.

8. Provided that a police officer shall,
in all cases where the arrest of a person is
not required under the provisions of this
sub-section record the reasons in writing
for not making the arrest.

41 A. Notice of appearance
before police officer.-- (I) The police
officer shall in all cases, where the arrest of
a person is not required under the
provisions of sub-section (I) of Section 41,
issue a notice directing the person against
whom a reasonable complaint has been
made, or credible information has been
received, or a reasonable suspicion exists
that he has committed a cognizable offence,
to appear before him or a such other place
as may be specified in the notice.

(2) Where such a notice is issued
to any person, it shall be the duty of the
person to comply with the terms of the
notice.

(3) Where such person complies
and continues to comply with the notice, he
shall not be arrested in respect of the
offence referred to in the notice unless, for
reasons to be recorded, the police officer is
of the opinion that he ought to be arrested.

9.

Moreover,
reliance
on
the
judgements dated 04.09.2018 passed by
Apex Court in the case of Social Action
Forum for Manav Adhikar Vs. Union of
India, Ministry of Law and Justice and
others in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 73 of
2015 with Criminal Appeal No. 1265 of
2017 Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 156 of
2017.

In which Hon'ble Supreme Court
has also issued directions:

20. We, therefore, direct the
Magistrates/ Police authorities that when
accused alleged with offence punishable up
to 7 years imprisonment are produced
before them remands may be granted to
accused only after the Magistrate satisfies
himself that the application for remand by
the police officer has been made in a bona
fide manner and the reasons for seeking
remand mentioned in the case diary are in
accordance with the requirements of
Section 41(I) (b) and 41 A Cr.P.C., and
there is concrete material in existence to
substantiate the ground mentioned for
seeking remand. Even where the accused
himself surrenders or where investigation
has been completed and the Magistrate
2 All. Vimal Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
151
needs to take the accused in judicial
custody as provided under Section 170(I)
and
Section
41(I)(b)(ii)(e)
Cr.P.C.
prolonged imprisonment at this initial
stage, where the accused has not been
adjudged guilty may not be called for, and
the Magistrate and Sessions Courts are to
consider the bails expeditiously and not to
mechanically refuse the same, especially in
short sentence cases punishable with upto 7
years imprisonment unless the allegations
are grave and there is any legal impediment
in allowing the bail, as laid down in Lal
Kamlendra Prap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
(2009) 4 SCC 437, and Sheoraj Singh @
Chuttan Vs. State of U.P. and others,
2009(65) ACC 781. The facility of
releasing the accused on interim bail
pending consideration of their regular bails
may also be accorded by the Magistrates
and Sessions Judges to appropriate cases.

21.The
Magistrate
may
also
furnish information to the Registrar of the
High Court through the District Judge, in
case he is satisfied that a particular police
officer has been persistently arresting
accused in cases punishable with upto 7
year terms, in a mechanical or mala fide
and dishonest manner, in contravention of
the requirements of sections 41(1)(b) and
41 A, and thereafter the matter may be
placed by the Registrar in this case, so that
appropriate directions may be issued to the
DGP to take action against such errant
police officer for his persistent default or
this
Court
may
initiate
contempt
proceedings against the defaulting police
officer.

22.The Sessions District Judges
should also be directed to impress upon the
remand Magistrates not to routinely grant
remand of accused to police officers
seeking remand for accused if the preconditions
for
granting
the
remands
mentioned in sections 41(1)(b) and 41 A
Cr.P.C.
are
not
disclosed
in
cases
punishable with 7 year terms, or where the
police officer appears to be seeking remand
for an accused in a mala fide manner in the
absence of concrete material. The issue of
compliance with sections 41(1)(b) and 41 A
Cr.P.C and the directions of this Court in
this regard may also be discussed in the
monthly meetings of the District Judges
with the administration and the superior
police officials.

23.We are also of the view that
the Registrar General may issue a circular
within a period of one month with
directions to the Sessions Courts and
Magistrates to monitor and oversee the
applications for remand sought by the
arresting police officers and to comply with
the other directions mentioned herein
above.

25.As already indicated above
we are of the view that by routinely
mentioning in the case diary that a
particular condition referred to in sections
41(1)(b) or 41 A Cr.P.C. has been met for
seeking police remand, would not provide
adequate reason for effecting the arrest.
The DGP is also directed to circulate the
present order to all subordinate police
officers.

10. We have been pained to note that
regularly petitions are filed where the
offence committed would be for a lesser
period then seven years or maximum
punishment would be seven years and they
routinely bring by way of writ petition
scrap of being arrested. The provision of
Section 41-A were incorporated of this
purpose only that concerned who is not
charged with heinous crime does not
require and whose custody is not required
may not face arrest. But we are pained that
this provision has not met his avoid
purpose.
152 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

27.Let a copy of this order be sent
to the DGP, U.P., Member Secretary, U.P.
SLSA and District Judges in all districts of
U.P. for compliance and communication to
all the concerned judicial magistrates
before whom the accused are produced for
remand by the police officers within ten
days.

11. In order to ensure what we have
observed above, we give the following
directions:

11.1. The State Governments to
instruct its police officers not to automatically
arrest when a case under Section 498-A IPC
is registered but to satisfy themselves about
the necessity for arrest under the parameters
laid down above flowing from Section 41-A
of Cr.P.C. 1973.

11.2. All police officers be
provided with a check list containing
specified
sub-clauses
under
Section
41(1)(b)(ii);

11.3. The police officer shall
forward the check list duly filled and
furnish the reasons and materials which
necessitated
the
arrest,
while
forwarding/producing the accused before
the Magistrate for further detention;

11.4.
The
Magistrate
while
authorising detention of the accused shall
peruse the report furnished by the police
officer in terms aforesaid and only after
recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate
will authorise detention;

11.6. Notice of appearance in terms
of Section 41-A CrPC be served on the
accused within two weeks from the date of
institution of the case, which may be extended
by the Superintendent of Police of the district
for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

12. While parting we appreciated the
efforts made by learned counsel for the
petitioners namely Sri Ajay Vikram Yadav
who has seriously urged to us that as scribe
are not facing what said to case under the
dowry prohibition Act as there is still no
marriage, but apprehend to arrest. That the
police
authorities
would
convey our
guidelines not only in this matter but in all
the investigations which are to be taken.

13. A copy be circulated by learned
Registrar General to the Law Secretary
who shall impress upon all the police
stations officers about the same.

14. We would like to draw the
attention of the police authorities of the
State to our order dated 18.01.2021 and the
provisions of section 41-A of the Cr.P.C.
Despite there being warning from the Apex
Court in the matter reported in Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 73 of 2015 Social
Action Forum for Manav Adhikar and
another Vs. Union of India, Ministry of
law and Justice and others (Supra) and
in the matter of Anand Tiwari Vs. State
of U.P. and others passed in Crl. Misc.
Writ Petition No. 17641 of 2020 and
Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014)
8 SCC 273 has directed the police
authorities to try the balance between
individual liberty and social order.

15. As the matter is still at the
investigating stage and the section alleges
498-A IPC and section 3⁄4 D.P. Act which is
levelled against all the family members, our
recent approach passed in Crl. Misc. Writ
Petition No. 64 of 2021 in Mr. Usha
Anuragi and others Vs. State of U.P. and
others will also be looked into by the court
below if the accused applies for bail/
anticipatory bail for such matters if they
have imminent danger from the police who
may not be adhering to section 41-A
Cr.P.C.
2 All. Billu @ Anandi & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
153

16. Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of
Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 (Supra) is a land
mark judgment which has to be followed
by police authorities along with the order
passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 73 of
2015 Social Action Forum for Manav
Adhikar and another Vs. Union of India,
Ministry of law and Justice and others
(Supra)

17. In that view of the matter, this
writ petition is partly allowed.
----------
(2022)02ILR A153
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.02.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR OJHA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 355 of 2022

Billu @ Anandi & Anr. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Mohammad Khalid, Sri Pawan Kumar
Yadav

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

(A)
Criminal
Law-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973-
Section
374(2)-
Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on
the ground of not pressed by counsel for
appellants and affirmed the conviction-
Even when the appeal was not pressed on
merits and only pressed only on the point
of sentence, appellate court has to see
whether
the
conviction
was
proper-
Criminal Appeal cannot be dismissed on
the ground of not pressed.

Settled law that it is incumbent upon the
appellate court to consider the appeal on merits
to see if the conviction is justified, legal and
proper and the same cannot be dismissed even
if not pressed by the counsel for the appellant.
( Para 9)

Criminal Revision allowed. (E-3)

Judgements/ Case law relied upon:-

1. St. of Har. Vs Janak Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 431

2. Crl. Apl. No. 1385-1386 of 2021, Gurjant
Singh Vs The St. of Punj.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anil Kumar Ojha, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionists, learned A.G.A. for the State by
means of Video Conferencing and perused
the record.

2. Challenge in this Revision is the
judgement and order dated 3.11.2021 passed
by Additional Sessions Judge (Rape Cases
& POCSO Act) Sambhal at Chandausi in
Appeal No. 20 of 2020 under Section 101 of
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act wrongly filed under Section
374 (2) Cr.P.C. (Billu @ Anandi and
Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another)
whereby learned Appellate Court dismissed
the appeal on the ground of not pressed by
counsel for appellants and affirmed the
conviction order dated 21.12.2020 passed by
Juvenile Justice Board, District Sambhal in
Case Crime No. 536 of 2005 under Sections
376, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Rajpura, District
Sambhal convicting and sentencing the
appellants under Section 376 I.P.C. for a
period of three years each and under Section
506 I.P.C. convicted the appellants for two
years each. Further directed that both the
sentences shall run concurrently.

3.

Learned
counsel
for
the
Revisionists raised only one point that
order dated 3.11.2021 is illegal as the