Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NEERAJ JAIN versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' SPECIAL SECY. RAJASVA ANUBHAG

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Neeraj Jain v. State Of U.P. Thru' Special Secy. Rajasva Anubhag-6 & Anr. - WRIT - C No. 7636 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 3115 (10 February 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Civil  Misc. W.P. No.  7636 of 2006

Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli, J.

Hon'ble Vikram Nath, J.

There is an Act known as Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951. In cases where a property was jointly owned by a person, who has been declared evacuee and a person who is not an evacuee, the interest of the evacuee could be separated under section 10 of the Act by an officer appointed under section 4 of the Act and known as 'Competent Officer.'

The petitioners have applied for such separation but, because there is no 'competent officer' appointed by the State Government, therefore, the petitioners' application has not been disposed of.

It has been stated that the State Government has sought consultation with the High Court, apparently for the purpose of appointing a sitting judicial officer of the Sub-Ordinate Judiciary to the said post.

According to the Act, a person having 5 years experience as a judicial officer or an Advocate of at least 7 years experience can be appointed as 'competent officer.'

If there are no rules to the contrary specifying that a sitting judicial officer has to be appointed, it would not be either desirable or practicable to appoint a sitting judicial officer as the 'competent officer' in view of the fact that already there is an acute shortage of judicial officers in the Sub-Ordinate Judiciary.

Between the person having 5 years experience as a judicial officer and an Advocate, the former should be preferred as the experience of adjudication is different and more important than the experience as an Advocate. Therefore, if as stated above, there is no restriction by the rules, the respondent No. 1 will consider the appointment of a retired judicial officer as the 'competent officer' and for this purpose if the respondent No. 1 feels  it may consult the High Court.

The respondent No. 1 will make every possible effort to ensure that the appointment is made of the 'competent officer' with respect to the territory of Muzaffar Nagar within three months from the date on which certified copy of this order is presented before the respondent No. 1.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Dated : February 10, 2006

AM/-


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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