Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


C/M Rajendra Prasad Post Graduate College And Another v. Addl. District Judge And Others - WRIT - C No. 69526 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 21641 (22 December 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).



Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.69526  of  2006

Committee of Management Rajendra Prasad Post Graduate

Collage, Meerganj, Bareilly and another...........................Petitioners


Additional District Judge, VIIth Bareilly and others........Respondents


Hon. Tarun Agarwala, J.

It transpires that respondent No.4, Mahaveer Kumar Agarwal was working at the relevant moment of time as an adhoc Principal of the College of the petitioner and was dismissed from service on certain charges. The matter was referred for arbitration under Section 36 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. It transpires that an award was given by the Tribunal, the extract of which has been annexed as Annexure 12 to the writ petition. The Tribunal directed the College to reinstate respondent No.4 on the post of Lecturer and further held that, if respondent No.4 was allowed to work as a lecturer, he shall not claim any past salary and, in that way, the College would not be financially burdened. This award of the Tribunal dated 6.6.1997 has not been challenged by the petitioner so far and therefore, it has become final between the parties.

Since respondent No.4 was not reinstated in the service he filed an execution application before the competent court, under Section 36(6) of the U.P. State Universities Act, in which, an objection was raised by the petitioner under Section 47 of the C.P.C. alleging that the petitioner could not be reinstated as there was no vacancy on the post of Lecturer in Economics. This application was rejected by the Executing Court. The petitioners filed Writ Petition No.41042 of 2003 which was dismissed summarily on the ground that such plea of non-availability of a vacant post could not be raised by the petitioners in execution proceedings since this plea was not raised earlier before the Tribunal. Thereafter it transpires that the petitioner filed another objection which was rejected and in this way writ petition No.46964 of 2004 and writ petition No.21814 of 2004 were filed by the petitioners which are pending consideration before the High Court. It transpires that the petitioners have now allowed the respondent No.4 to join as a Lecturer on 27.10.2006. By the present writ petition the petitioners have prayed the following relief:-

"A. A writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 22.9.06 passed by the Additional District Judge VIIth Bareilly in Civil Revision No.71 of 2006 Committee of Management versus Shri Mahaveer Kumar Agarwal (which is ANNEXURE No.1, to the present writ petition).

B. A writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 9.5.06  13.10.06 in Execution institution No. 05 of 2001 Mahaveer Kumar Agarwal Versus Committee of Management (which is ANNEXURE No.2 & 3 to the present writ petition)

C. Any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case to meet ends of justice.

D. To pay cost of the petitioner to the petitioners."

By an order dated 9.5.2006 the application 107-Ga of the petitioner was rejected by the executing court and the order of the executing court dated 18.2.2006 for auctioning the assets of the petitioner was affirmed. This order of 9.5.2006 was affirmed by an order of the revisional court dated 22.9.2006. On 13.10.2006 the executing court rejected the application 147-Ga of the judgment debtor in which it was prayed that  the Management was now willing to reinstate the petitioner.

In my view, I do not fine any error in the impugned order passed by the executing court. The petitioner having not complied with the award, the executing court was justified in passing the order for the sale of the assets of the College. This Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned orders passed by the executing court.

The writ petition is dismissed summarily.

Dated: 22.12.2006



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.