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


Kamal Singh Yadav v. State Of U.P. Thru' Principal Secy. & Others - WRIT - C No. 65025 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 4053 (5 October 2005)


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).


Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli, J.

Hon'ble Umeshwar Pandey, J.

The learned Standing Counsel may file a counter affidavit within one month.  Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks.  List thereafter.

A counter affidavit has been filed by Sri Tej Pal and Sukhendu Pal Singh, Advocates representing Sri Umesh Baijal.  Rejoinder affidavit to the same may also be filed within the same period.

The petitioner has been removed by the impugned order of the State Government dated 9.9.2005 from the elected post of President of Nagar Palika Parishad, Shikohabad, District-Firozabad relying upon an inquiry report of the District Magistrate, Firozabad.  We have gone through the impugned order and find that the inquiry report was one of the important materials relied upon for recording finding adverse to the petitioner in respect of the charges and the petitioner has been removed from the elected post on the basis of those findings.

According to the petitioner the said inquiry report of the District Magistrate was not made available to the petitioner before recording the findings against the petitioner in the impugned order relying upon that report.

Such act on the part of the State Government is violative of the principle of natural justice.

Sri Tej Pal representing Umesh Baijal, who has filed caveat in this case has submitted that no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner as a result of non supply of the report of the District Magistrate.  When the petitioner is being removed on findings based upon the said report, no further prejudice is required to be shown..

The learned counsel for the caveator has also argued that under the Act the order passed by the State Government has been made final and cannot be challenged in Court. The argument is misconceived. The Constitutional powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be taken away by such statements in Acts of Legislatures.

In view of the above, we stay the operation of the impugned order dated 9.9.2005 till further orders.




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.