# Vineet Sachdeva v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2015) 1 ILRA 262
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-02-03
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 2002 of 2015
- **Bench:** Arun Tandon, Harsh Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vineet-sachdeva-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43296
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Cancellation
of application from zone of consideration of
allotment-on ground petitioner by applying
two categories i.e. 'D' & 'E' itself-brought
himself beyond zone of consideration-as
per clause (ii) 10 of brochure 'Terms and
conditions of Residential plots scheme,
2009 (c) a person could apply only one
category out of five-held-wrong-result of
misinterpretation-otherwise from clause iii
of para 10 would be meaningless-petitioner
very fairly surrendered his allotments of
category
'E'-hence
cancellation
of
application illegal.
Held: Para-13 & 14

## Text

262
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
are not forwarded to the selling dealer. The
only legal recourse is for the selling dealer
to file a suit for the recovery of the sales tax
from the purchasing dealer. There is no
reason to deviate from this position. It
should be recalled that, for the benefit of the
assessee, the Rules permit the filing of
exemption Forms till the time of assessment,
this is probably the reason why dealers
postpone their obtainment. There is no
reason for the consequences of the dealers
acts of omission or commission to visit the
Department. The Act and the Rules do not
prohibit the simultaneous furnishing of ST-1
Forms. They, in fact, envisage it."
8. In the instant case we find that there
is an agreement between the petitioner and
the private respondents for supply of goods
on certain terms and conditions. The Sales
Tax Department is not party to this
agreement nor is privy with any assurances
that might have been exchanged inter se
between the petitioner and the respondents.
Form-C is obtained by the purchasing dealer
from his assessing authority upon due
verification and genuineness being shown
and if for any reason Form-C is not
forwarded by the purchasing dealer to the
selling dealer then the only recourse
available is to file a suit for recovery against
the Sales Tax Department from purchasing
dealer or arbitration clause under the
agreement. We are, accordingly, of the
opinion that no mandamus could be issued to
the private respondents for issuance of FormC.
9. In the light of the aforesaid, the
writ petition fails and is dismissed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.02.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.
THE HON'BLE HARSH KUMAR, J.
Writ-C No. 2002 of 2015
Vineet Sachdeva
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri T.P. Singh, Sri Siddharth Nandan
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Suresh Singh
Constitution of India, Art.-226-Cancellation
of application from zone of consideration of
allotment-on ground petitioner by applying
two categories i.e. 'D' & 'E' itself-brought
himself beyond zone of consideration-as
per clause (ii) 10 of brochure 'Terms and
conditions of Residential plots scheme,
2009 (c) a person could apply only one
category out of five-held-wrong-result of
misinterpretation-otherwise from clause iii
of para 10 would be meaningless-petitioner
very fairly surrendered his allotments of
category
'E'-hence
cancellation
of
application illegal.
Held: Para-13 & 14
13. We are of the considered opinion that
there is substance in the submissions
made by the counsel for the petitioner.
From a simple reading of Clause 10 (A) (ii)
or 10(d)(ii) of the Brochure, we find that a
person was entitled to make more than
one application under the scheme, i.e. one
application each in respect of one plot of
each category. Meaning thereby that a
person was entitled to submit as many as
five applications at a time one each for a
plot in each of the five different categories.
But he would be entitled for allotment of
one plot in any of the categories under the
scheme.
14. In fact under clause 10(A) (iii) or 10
(d) (iii) lead to such interpretation,
inasmuch as if clause (ii) permitted
making of one application by a person
only that there would have been no need
to make a provision under clause (iii)
1 All] Vineer Sachdeva Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
263
disqualifying a person from allotment of
more than one plot in the scheme. The
petitioner was therefore correct and did
not
commit
any
error/wrong,
in
submitting two applications, one for plot
falling under category 'D' and the other
for the plot falling under category 'E'. We
may record that the petitioner was more
than fair in surrendering the allotment of
plot offered to him falling under the
category 'E', as under clause 10 (A) (iii) a
person could be allotted only one plot
under the entire scheme. The petitioner
has decided to retain the allotment made
in his favour in respect of plot falling
under category 'D' and surrendered plot
allotted under category 'E'. There is no
justification to deprive him from the plots
allotted in his favour in category 'D'.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.)
1. Heard Sri T.P. Singh, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth
Nandan,
learned
Advocate
for
the
petitioner and Sri Suresh Singh, learned
counsel for the respondents.
2. The writ has been filed for
quashing of the impugned orders dated
12.11.2014 and 02.11.2012 contained in
Annexure Nos.1 and 8 respectively.
3. The controversy raised by means
of present writ petition revolves around
interpretation to be placed upon Clause 10
(ii) and (iii) of "Terms and Conditions of
the Residential Plot Scheme 2009 (1) of
YEIDA.
4. The copy of the brochure titled
"Terms and Conditions of the Residential
Plot Schemes 2009(1) of YEIDA" in
English and Hindi has been filed as
Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Clause
10A in English at page 30 and Clause 10
d in Hindi at page 37 of the writ petition
reads as under :'
"10. ELIGIBILITY TO APPLY:
A. General Category:
(i) The applicant must be competent
to contract and shall have attained the age
of majority.
(ii) All Indians/Non-Resident Indians
who are neither in any way prohibited by
the Government of India nor by U.P.
Government under any specific rules to
purchase any immovable property in U.P.,
shall be eligible to apply. Persons eligible
as above can apply under any category
only for one plot.
(iii) No person shall be eligible to get
allotment for more than one plot in this
scheme."
"10- vkosnu gsrq ik=rk%
1⁄4d1⁄2 lkekU; Js.kh%
1⁄4i1⁄2 vkosnd o;Ld gksukk pkfg, rFkk vuqca/k
djus gsrq l{ke gksuk pkfg,A
1⁄4ii1⁄2 leLr Hkkjrh;@izoklh; Hkkjrh; ukxfjd
tks Hkkjr ljdkj vFkok mRrj izns'k ljdkj ds
fdlh fu;e ds vUrxZr mRrj izns'k esa vpy
lEifRr dz; djus gsrq fdlh Hkh izdkj ls izfrcaf/kr
ugh gS] vkosnu gsrq ik= gksxsaA mijksDrkuqlkj ik=
O;fDr fdlh Hkh Js.kh ds varxZr ,d gh Hkw[k.M gsrq
vkosnu dj ldrk gSA
1⁄4iii1⁄2 dksbZ Hkh O;fDr ,d ls vf/kd Hkw[k.M
vkoaVu gsrq ik= ugha gksxkA"
5. The relevant facts in short leading
to this petition are as follows:-
Yamuna Expressway Development
Authority published an advertisement for
settlement of Residential Plot Scheme2009 wherein prospective candidates were
called upon to apply for allotment of plots
falling within the territorial jurisdiction of
the said development authority. These
plots were categorized in five categories
264
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
i.e. A, B, C, D, and E. The petitioner
before
this
Court
submitted
two
applications for plots one each falling
under the categories 'D' and 'E'. After
draw of lots, the petitioner was found to
have been selected for allotment of two
plots one falling in categories 'D' and the
other in category "E'. The petitioner on
being made aware that he has been
selected
for
two
plots,
himself
surrendered the allotment, which was
made in respect of plot falling under
category 'E', as this allotment was
subsequent in point of time, meaning
thereby he expressed his willingness for
keeping the plot first allotted, falling
under the category 'D'. This according to
the petitioner was done in conformity
with clause 10 (iii) as quoted above.
6. However, under the order
impugned dated 2.11.2012 the authority
has proceeded to cancel the allotment
made in respect of plot falling under
category 'D' also.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner
approached this Court by means of Writ
Petition No.9577 of 2013, which was
disposed of requiring the petitioner to
approach the State Government under
section 12 of U.P. Industrial Area
Development Act, 1976 read with section
41 (3) of the Urban Planning and
Development Act, 1973.
8. The State Government under the
order impugned dated 12.11.2014, has
maintained
the
decision
of
the
Development Authority. Both, the State
as well as Development Authority have
recorded a finding that in view of clause
10 (ii) the applicant could have submitted
only one application in respect of one plot
only in any of the five categories. Since
the
petitioner
had
submitted
two
applications, he has rightly been held
disqualified
from
the
zone
of
consideration for allotment.
9. Sri T.P. Singh, learned Senior
Counsel
assisted
by
Sri
Siddharth
Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioner
points out that on simple reading of
Clause 10 (ii), it is apparent that the
applicant
was
entitled
to
make
applications in respect of one plot falling
in each of the five categories and it is on
this reading of the clause that the
petitioner had submitted two applications,
one for plot falling under category 'D' and
the other falling under category 'E'. The
petitioner
was
intimated
about
his
selection in respect of plot falling under
category 'D' prior in point of time. In view
of provisions of Clause 10 (iii) quoted
above, on being informed of his selection
for the second plot falling in category 'E',
he immediately surrendered the same.
10. Counsel for the petitioner
submits that the impugned orders passed
by respondents are based on misreading
of the said clause 10 (ii) and, being bad in
law are liable to be quashed.
11. Sri Suresh Singh, learned counsel
for the respondents, on the contrary
supports the order of the development
authority as well as State Government, and
submits that development authority has
restricted the making of more than one
application by any person for one plot only
in respect of any of the five categories. This
is what he interprets from the reading of the
clause 10(d)(ii). It is the case of respondents
that the words " mijksDrkuqlkj ik= O;fDr fdlh
Hkh Js.kh ds vUrxZr ,d gh Hkw&[k.M gsrq vkosnu dj
ldrk gS." makes it clear that in respect of all
the categories, only one application could
have been made for allotment of one plot.
1 All] Vineer Sachdeva Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
265
12. Heard counsel for the parties and
examined the records.
13. We are of the considered opinion
that there is substance in the submissions
made by the counsel for the petitioner.
From a simple reading of Clause 10 (A)
(ii) or 10(d)(ii) of the Brochure, we find
that a person was entitled to make more
than one application under the scheme,
i.e. one application each in respect of one
plot of each category. Meaning thereby
that a person was entitled to submit as
many as five applications at a time one
each for a plot in each of the five different
categories. But he would be entitled for
allotment of one plot in any of the
categories under the scheme.
14. In fact under clause 10(A) (iii)
or 10 (d) (iii) lead to such interpretation,
inasmuch as if clause (ii) permitted
making of one application by a person
only that there would have been no need
to make a provision under clause (iii)
disqualifying a person from allotment of
more than one plot in the scheme. The
petitioner was therefore correct and did
not
commit
any
error/wrong,
in
submitting two applications, one for plot
falling under category 'D' and the other
for the plot falling under category 'E'. We
may record that the petitioner was more
than fair in surrendering the allotment of
plot offered to him falling under the
category 'E', as under clause 10 (A) (iii) a
person could be allotted only one plot
under the entire scheme. The petitioner
has decided to retain the allotment made
in his favour in respect of plot falling
under category 'D' and surrendered plot
allotted under category 'E'. There is no
justification to deprive him from the plots
allotted in his favour in category 'D'.
15. For the said reasons, the order
passed by the Development authority and
that passed by the State Government are
held to be bad.
16. In view of discussions made
above, the allotment of the plot in favour
of the petitioner falling under the category
'D' is fully justified under the scheme and
is restored subject to the fulfillment of
conditions of allotment by the petitioner,
in accordance with the allotment order.
17. We may clarify that if any
person has been awarded two plots under
the same scheme, may be in different
categories, the development authority
would be justified in canceling the
allotment of one of the two plots, which
was offered later in point of time
irrespective of the fact that such allottee,
has transferred the second plot in favour,
to some third person.
18. On simple reading of clause 10
(iii), it is clear that a person upon
allotment of a particular plot within the
scheme in any of the five categories,
stands disqualified for allotment of any
other plots, subsequently in same or any
other
category.
The
Development
authority will be justified in proceeding
for cancellation of later plot in accordance
with law.
19. The writ petition is allowed
subject to the observation made.
20.

We
further
require
the
development authority to notify the
revised schedule in the matter of payment
of installment etc. to the petitioner within
two weeks of the receipt of the certified
copy of this order.
--------
266
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.02.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.
THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH-VII, J.
Criminal Appeal No. 2895 of 1986
Mahtab
 ...Appellant
Versus
State
...Opp. Party
Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri V.S. Rathore, Sri Gyaneshwar Bhatt,
Sri A.K. Shukla, Sri A.K. Shrivastava
Counsel for the Opp. Party:
A.G.A.
Criminal Appeal-against conviction of life
imprisonment under section 302 IPCchallenged on ground-right to defend to
accused not properly given-opportunity
to explain real cause of death properly
given
under
section
313
Cr.P.C.-
deceased being wife of appellant who
was found present-no omission on part
of Trail Court found-can not be said to be
prejudiced the right of accused to defend
himself-Trail Court rightly held that the
appellant committed murder of his wifepresumptions not disputed-by accusedappeal dismissed.
Held: Para-40
On close analysis of the evidence and the
questions framed by the trial Court in the
statement under section 313 Cr.P.C., it
clearly
indicates
that
all
the
incriminating inculpatory evidence have
been placed before the accused and
opportunity to explain the real cause of
death has also been given to the accused
which has not been explained by the
accused truthfully. There is no omission
on part of the trial Court. Therefore, in
the facts and circumstances of the case,
it cannot be said that right of the
accused to defend himself for the reason
mentioned above has been prejudiced.
Trial Court has followed correct legal
procedure. Sufficient opportunity has
been offered through the questions put
to accused to explain the real cause of
murder as the deceased is done to death
in his house. Ligature mark clearly goes
to show that deceased died due to
strangulation. Since the dead body of the
deceased was found in the house of the
deceased and deceased is the wife of
accused, who was present in the house,
medical evidence clearly establishes that
deceased has been murdered, therefore,
all
the
circumstances
laid
by
the
prosecution before the Court for raising
presumption under section 114 of the
Indian Evidence Act taking recourse of
the provisions of section 106 of the
Indian Evidence Act have arisen. Trial
Court has rightly held that it was the
accused who has committed the murder
of his wife and this presumption has not
been
rebutted
by
the
accused
by
adducing any evidence. Thus, point no.4
& 6 are answered as above.
Case Law discussed:
(2015) 1 Supreme Court Cases 496; 1969 AIR
422.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap
Sahi, J.)
1. This criminal appeal has been
preferred by the appellant Mahtab son of
Raghu Lal resident of Khargapur, P.S.
Bisalpur, District Pilibhit against the
judgment and order dated 10.09.1986
passed by Sessions Judge, Pilibhit in
Sessions Trial No.125 of 1986 (State Vs.
Mahtab) under Section 302 IPC, P.S.
Bisalpur whereby the trial Court has
convicted and sentenced the accusedappellant Mahtab under Section 302 IPC
for life imprisonment.
2. The prosecution case in nutshell is
that on 31.1.1986, informant Raghu Lal