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


Lal Singh Rakesh v. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. And Others - WRIT - A No. 38067 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 12170 (25 July 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.3

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.38067 of 2006

Lal Singh Rakesh Vs. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. through its                

Chairman, Shakti Bhawan, Lucknow

and others


(Hon'ble Justice Amitava Lala and Hon'ble Justice V.C. Misra)


For the Petitioner     :   Smt. Sadhna Upadhyay

Sri Sant Saran Upadhyay Sri P.S. Baghel

For the Respondents :  Sri U.N. Sharma

         Sri R.D. Khare


Standing Counsel.

Amitava Lala, J. :  The petitioner has challenged the order of transfer after taken over the charge in the transferred post on the basis of the Judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in Suresh Chandra Sharma Vs. Chairman, UPLBEC and others reported in 2005 (3) SCC-153, pointing out to this Court that as per paragraph-8 (3) of the said Judgment ''all proposals for transfers postings of officers and staff of the aforesaid Corporations should, before finalization, be placed before the independent committee which shall examine and approve the transfers postings on merits and in the light of the guidelines for transfer policy of officers'. This order was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to avoid mala fide transfer etc. However, in the instant case, the contention of the respondent-Corporation is that there is no question of mala fide action because the transfer was needed due to ''Ardh Kumbh Mela' to be held at Allahabad. However, since the Committee/Sub Committee was formed on the basis of the order of the Supreme Court for the purpose of monitoring and also for the purpose of appropriate approval on transfer, we do not want to pass any conflicting order to avoid the situation. Hence, formally both the transfer orders either against the petitioner or the respondent no.4 are liable to be struck down. Accordingly the order/s is/are quashed. However, a decision will be taken by the Committee within a period of three days in respect of appropriate approval justifying the cause of transfer.

Thus, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order is passed as to costs.

Copy of this order will be handed over to the lawyers appearing for the parties, on payment of usual charges. However, learned counsel appearing for the parties, are entitled to take inspection of the order and communicate under their letterhead and in that case, the authorities can act upon such communication.

                        (Justice Amitava Lala)

I agree.

(Justice V.C. Misra)

July 25, 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.