Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2984 (ALL)

SHIVA KANT RAI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2007-12-13

ANJANI KUMAR

body2007
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Anjani Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Shashi Nandan appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner, by means of this writ petition, has challenged the order dated 19.11.2007, whereby the petitioner, who is under suspension, has been repatriated from L.I.U. to Civil Police and is posted in the district Basti. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this order of repatriation is in contravention of the provisions of Regulation No. 525 of the Police Regulations. The provision of police regulations has not been demonstrated to have any statutory force. They are supposed to be administrative instructions or administrative orders for guidance to the authorities. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and others v. G. Ratnam and others, (2007) 8 SCC 212 (In para 20) has held as under : “20. It is well settled that the Central Government or the State Government can give administrative instructions to its servants how to act in certain circumstances; but that will not make such instructions statutory rules which are justiciable in certain circumstances. In order that such executive instructions have the force of statutory rules, it must be shown that they have been issued either under the authority conferred on the Central Government or the State Government by some statute or under some provision of the Constitution providing therefor. Therefore, even if there has been any breach of such executive instructions that does not confer any right on any member of the public to ask for a writ against the Government by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” 4. In this view of the matter, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed and it is dismissed. 5. Lastly it is submitted by Sri Shashi Nandan learned Counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been attached in Basti whereas the disciplinary proceeding is pending at Ghazipur, for this, petitioner is at liberty to approach the authorities with the prayer that he may be attached to Ghazipur so that he may attend the enquiry. 6. If such representation is made by the petitioner, the same shall be considered sympathetically and decided by the respondents in accordance with law. ————