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


Saraswati Devi and others v. D.D.C. and others - WRIT - C No. 64575 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 4074 (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. S. K. Singh, J.

Argument is that in respect to the wrong which is said to have been committed by the concerned official and also the petitioners, time barred objections under Section 9-B of the U. P. C. H. Act  admittedly is pending which may be rejected or which may be allowed also but during the pendency of the objections in the judicial side in respect to the matter in issue exercise of enquiry and direction by the Deputy Director of Consolidation for taking appropriate action against all named in the enquiry report is clearly illegal and unauthorised. Submission is that unless in the judicial forum the complaint of the complainant is found to be correct, in the administrative side this exercise may not be in the ends of justice and that may lead to pre-judging  the issue which is in issue before the consolidation courts. It is further submitted that at an earlier occasion on the enquiry having been made on the complaint report was given about pendency of the proceeding in the judicial side but thereafter again the matter was directed to be enquired and as the matter related for an enquiry under the direction of Minister, the authorities had to exceed  to that and thus direction of the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be said to be an exercise of his independent mind.

Be as it may, on the facts, it is provided as an interim measure that till the next date of listing operation of the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 27.6.2005 (annexure no. 17) shall remain stayed and nothing will proceed pursuant to the aforesaid order.

However, it is made clear that so far the proceeding under Section 9-B of the U. P. C. H. Act which  is pending that will proceed with all expedition and petitioner undertakes not to seek any adjournment unless it is required for very compelling reasons.

Sri Jai Prakash Prasad, learned Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 5 and 6. Sri Anuj Kumar, learned Advocate represents respondent no. 4. Learned Chief Standing Counsel represents respondent no. 1 to 3.

Issue notice to respondent no. 7. Steps will be taken within ten days. All the respondents may file counter affidavit by the next date.

List this petition in the week commencing 28th November, 2005.





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.