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


Brij Nath Tripathi v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 29887 of 2004 [2006] RD-AH 17068 (3 October 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).


Court No. 36

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29887 of 2004

Brij Nath Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli, J.

Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.

The petitioner challenges the impugned order dated 7.7.2004 passed by the Government on the ground that the High Court and the Supreme Court which set aside the earlier order, had not granted liberty to hold fresh inquiry.

It appears from the fact mentioned in the impugned order dated 7.7.2004 that the petitioner wanted to be regularized in service.  The regularization was refused on the ground that the petitioner had contracted two marriages and accordingly the petitioner was not eligible to continue in government service.  In earlier Writ Petition No. 18255 of 1999 filed by the petitioner, the High Court held relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Surjeet Kaur vs Garja Singh and others reported in AIR 1994 SC 135 that the department was required to prove saptapadi etc. as mentioned in Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act.  It was held by the High Court that there was no finding about this compliance of Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, by the Tribunal or by the Inquiry Officer, and therefore the orders were quashed and the petitioner was directed to be regularized.  A special leave petition was dismissed for filing review petition.  Review petition was dismissed and against the dismissal of the review petition, the S.L.P. filed by the State Government was also dismissed.  Thereafter, the second inquiry took place in which a pure finding of fact has been recorded by the government about plural marriages contracted by the petitioner, first with Smt. Sharda Devi and second with Smt. Gita.  This finding of fact is based upon evidence in the form of certain letter and certain admission.  

It is not for a writ Court to examine sufficiency of evidence.  It has been found that the petitioner had been living along with first wife Smt. Sharda Devi for 17 years and there was a letter by the petitioner, which supports marriage with Smt. Sharda Devi.  In view of this situation we cannot accept the suggestion of the petitioner that it was necessary for the department to prove compliance of Section 7 of Hindu Marriage Act regarding this very old first marriage. The law laid down by the Supreme Court was with regard to proof of criminal offence where things have to be proved beyond doubt.

The second marriage with Smt. Gita is addmited by the petitioner.

As stated above, in writ jurisdiction findings of fact cannot be interfered on the ground of insufficiency of evidence on which the findings are based.  On this finding about plural marriage, the petitioner cannot be permitted to continue in government service by mandamus, on technicalities.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Dated: 03.10.2006



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.