Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE C/M SANJAY KUMAR SARASWATI VIDYA MANDIR INT.COL. & ANR. versus TNE C/M SANJAY KUMAR SARASWATI SHIKSHA SAMITI, MAGHAV & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The C/M Sanjay Kumar Saraswati Vidya Mandir Int.Col. & Anr. v. Tne C/M Sanjay Kumar Saraswati Shiksha Samiti, Maghav & Ors. - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 155 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 2802 (20 February 2007)

 

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

Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.

There is delay of 55 days in filing the special appeal against the judgment and order of learned single Judge dated 22.8.2006.

Learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant petitioner against the judgment and order of Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority of the C.R.P.F. Department by which the services of the petitioner had been dismissed   for misconduct for  remaining absent from his duty for about six years.

Learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of special appeal. In view of provision of Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules 1952 which provides if the writ petition before the learned single Judge filed against the judgment and order of Revisional Authority, the special appeal is not maintainable.

We find substance in the preliminary objection raised by the counsel for the respondent. The appeal is liable to be dismissed  non maintainable, even if  the delay is condoned. More so Union of India has neither been impleaded in writ court nor before this Court(Appellate Court). In view of decision of Apex Court in the case of Ranjeet Mal,  Vs. General Manager, Northern Railway,New Delhi and another reported in AIR 1977 Supreme Court page 1701 the writ petition was not maintainable. Since the appeal is the continuation of writ petition, therefore, the Special Appeal is also not maintainable.

Thus in view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner/appellant. Thus condoning the delay will be a futile exercise. Therefore, we are not inclined to condone the delay. The application for condonation of delay is rejected and the appeal is dismissed as barred by time and non maintainable.

The special appeal is dismissed.

Dt.20.2.2007

Hsc/155/07


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.