# Yogesh Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 2 ILRA 840
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-07-15
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31251 of 2014
- **Bench:** Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J. Dilip Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/yogesh-kumar-mishra-v-state-of-u-p-ors-42989
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Permit to
play mini bus-in to two adjoining Districtsauthority
refused
to
entertain
such
application-unless
character
certificatefrom
both
district
filed-held-arbitraryrequirement by provision of para 6 (ka) of
resolution-shows total non application of
mind-authorities
shall
not
insist
of
certificate from both the districts-except in
which petitioner permanently residing.

Held: Para-3
Merely because an applicant desires to
carry on business, in this case operating
a stage carriage which covers more than
2 All]. Yogesh Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
841
one district, there is no logical reason to
require a character certificate to be
furnished from the District Magistrate of
the
adjoining
district as
well.
The
character of an applicant does not alter
depending upon whether he has to ply
his bus/vehicle in one or more than one
district. In the circumstances, we are of
the view that clause (Ka) shows a patent
non-application of mind and has no
reasonable justification. In fact, learned
Standing Counsel has also not been able
to point out any justification at all.

## Text

840 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
would hence offend Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution. Hence, the exclusion of
reservation from the post of the Head of
the Institution in Section 10 of the Act of
1982 is in conformity with the provisions
of the Constitution and is, in fact,
intended to ensure that there is no
violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. As a matter of fact, Rule 12
(6) of the U.P. Secondary Education
Services Selection Board Rules, 1998
makes
a
clear
distinction
between
recruitment of teachers in the lecturer and
trained graduate scale on the one hand
and
the
recruitment
of
the
Principals/Headmasters on the other hand.
In the case of the latter, there is no
provision for reservation consistent with
the provisions of Section 10 of the Act of
1982.

8. In this view of the matter, we are
unable to accept the challenge to the
constitutional validity of the provisions of
Section 10 of the Act of 1982 insofar as it
excludes the post of Head of the Institution
from the ambit of reservation. As a matter of
fact, the constitutional validity of Section 10
of the Act of 1982 is squarely covered by the
decision of the Supreme Court in Chakradhar
Paswan (supra) and the subsequent line of
judgments, which have been noted in the
judgments of Balbir Kaur (supra) and Bharat
Singh (supra). The decisions in Balbir Kaur
(supra) and Bharat Singh (supra) emanated
from the State of Uttar Pradesh. As a matter
of fact, Balbir Kaur (supra) considered both
the Act of 1994 and the Act of 1982. Since
we are governed by binding precedent and
the law laid down by the Supreme Court,
there would be no occasion for this Court to
exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution in view of the clear
proposition of law as interpreted in
successive decisions of the Supreme Court.
The Government Order dated 12 January
2011 (Anneuxre No.7), on which reliance
has been placed by the petitioner, is similarly
of no avail since the administrative decision
must necessarily be read in the context of the
provisions of the relevant Act and the law
laid down by the Supreme Court.

9. For these reasons, we see no
ground to entertain the petition. The
petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.07.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. DHANANJAYA YESHWANT
CHANDRACHUD, C.J.
THE HON'BLE DILIP GUPTA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31251 of 2014

Yogesh Kumar Mishra ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anand Kumar Singh, Sriprakash Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Permit to
play mini bus-in to two adjoining Districtsauthority
refused
to
entertain
such
application-unless
character
certificatefrom
both
district
filed-held-arbitraryrequirement by provision of para 6 (ka) of
resolution-shows total non application of
mind-authorities
shall
not
insist
of
certificate from both the districts-except in
which petitioner permanently residing.

Held: Para-3
Merely because an applicant desires to
carry on business, in this case operating
a stage carriage which covers more than
2 All]. Yogesh Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
841
one district, there is no logical reason to
require a character certificate to be
furnished from the District Magistrate of
the
adjoining
district as
well.
The
character of an applicant does not alter
depending upon whether he has to ply
his bus/vehicle in one or more than one
district. In the circumstances, we are of
the view that clause (Ka) shows a patent
non-application of mind and has no
reasonable justification. In fact, learned
Standing Counsel has also not been able
to point out any justification at all.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dhananjaya
Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J.)

1. The petitioner is the owner of two
mini buses and plies them on the basis of a
stage carriage permit from Varanasi to Sarai
Mamrej
via
Jansa,
Kapsethi,
Chauri
Bhadohi. The permit which was issued by
the Regional Transport Authority, Mirzapur
in respect of one of the vehicles bearing
registration No. UP66T-1255 is valid until
26 January 2017. The petitioner has applied
for a permit on a route which falls within two
districts. The petitioner has averred that the
Regional Transport Authority, Mirzapur
declined to entertain the application dated 26
February 2014 on the ground that clause
6(Ka) contained in the resolution dated 19
March 2013 states that where an applicant
applies for a permit for another district in
addition to his home district, he shall have to
file a character certificate obtained from both
the home district as well as the adjoining
district. In other words, a character certificate
is required to be obtained from the District
Magistrate, both of the home district and the
adjoining district in respect of which the
stage carriage permit is sought. The
petitioner is aggrieved by this condition
which, it is urged, is arbitrary.

2. When the petition came up on 1
July 2014, we had directed the learned
Standing Counsel to take instructions and,
if necessary, to file a short counter
affidavit explaining the rationale for
imposing this condition. No counter has
been filed. Learned Standing Counsel,
however, states that instructions have now
been furnished to him.

3. We see no reason or justification for
the imposition of a condition requiring an
applicant to furnish character certificates
from both the districts, namely the home
district as well as the adjoining district in
respect of which a stage carriage permit is
sought for plying the vehicle on a route
which falls within the ambit of two
districts. Character of an applicant has to
be certified by the District Magistrate
having jurisdiction over the place where
the applicant is an ordinary resident.
Merely because an applicant desires to
carry on business, in this case operating a
stage carriage which covers more than
one district, there is no logical reason to
require a character certificate to be
furnished from the District Magistrate of
the adjoining district as well. The
character of an applicant does not alter
depending upon whether he has to ply his
bus/vehicle in one or more than one
district. In the circumstances, we are of
the view that clause (Ka) shows a patent
non-application of mind and has no
reasonable justification. In fact, learned
Standing Counsel has also not been able
to point out any justification at all.

4. In these circumstances, we read
down the requirement of clause (Ka) of the
resolution of the second respondent dated 19
March 2013 to mean that the applicant shall
furnish a character certificate from the home
district. The requirement of an additional
character certificate from the adjoining
district shall not be insisted upon.
842 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5. The application of the petitioner
shall now be considered in terms of the
aforesaid directions.

6. The petition is, accordingly, disposed
of. There shall be no order as to costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.07.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33525 of 2014

Rahul Shukla & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad,
Ghaziabad ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Bhuvneshwar Prasad

Counsel for the Respondent:
---

U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972-Section 30petitioner are ghatwara-by putting Takhta
and cottage therein-on payment of Rs.
5000/-annual
fee-on
refusal
moved
application-to make deposit under section
30-rejected by authorities below-in absence
of relationship of Land lord and tenantprovisions of section 30-not attracted-heldproper petition dismissed.

Held: Para-14
In the absence of any evidence regarding
existence of relationship of landlord and
tenant, the conclusion is inevitable that
petitioners are mere licencees, who have
been permitted to put Takhat on Brij
Ghat to carry their Jajmani business and
not tenants. Therefore, the provisions of
the Act do not get attracted and Section
30 of the Act does not come into play.

Case Law discussed:
1965 ALJ 722; 1981 Law Suit (Alld.) 563; 1987
(1) Alld. Rent Case 208.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Bhuvneshwar Prasad,
learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. The petitioners have preferred this
petition against the order of Civil Judge (Junior
Division) rejecting their application filed under
Section 30 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972
(hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the order
of revisional court dismissing the revision
arising therefrom.

3. The aforesaid orders are dated
30.9.2011 and 21.4.2014 respectively.

4. The petitioners applied for
depositing rent in court under Section 30 of
the Act contending that they are carrying
'Jajmani' work on the banks of Ganga at Brij
Ghat. They are providing service of
Tilak/Chandan to pilgrims and for the
purpose pays Rs.500/- per annum to the
Nagar Palika Parishad. They have lastly paid
the aforesaid amount for the year 2005-06.
Since the Nagar Palika Parishad thereafter
has refused to accept it, they may be
permitted to deposit the rent in court.

5. Section 30 of the Act contemplates
deposit of rent in court in two contingencies
namely where there is bona fide doubt or
dispute as to the person to whom the rent is
payable or where the landlord refuses to
accept the rent of the building from the tenant.

6. A bare reading of Section 30 of the
Act makes it clear that it is attracted where
there is a doubt or dispute as to the person to
whom the rent is payable or where the
landlord refuses to accpet the rent of a
building
from
the
tenant.