JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sanjay Misra, J.—Heard Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner claims to have appeared in M.A. (Final) Examination of the year 2003 as a regular student of Agra College, Agra having Roll No. 62339. He claims that when the result was declared he has passed in all the papers but in Paper No. V.B.Modern American Literature he was awarded only 12 marks out of 100 and hence feeling aggrieved he had applied for scrutiny in which his claim was also rejected hence this writ petition. 3. The relief claimed in this writ petition is that he should be awarded average marks in the aforesaid paper or the paper itself should be re-examined by another examiner. 4. Counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents wherein it has been stated that the petitioner was awarded marks as given to him by the examiner whereafter he applied for scrutiny and after scrutiny it was reported that there was no change found in the marks allotted to him in the said paper. According to learned counsel for the respondent the scrutiny was done in the year 2003 itself and the petitioner has filed this writ petition in the year 2006 by which time the answer-sheets have been weeded out by the University and, therefore, cannot be produced before this Court. 5. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record it is not disputed that the petitioner appeared in the examination in the year 2003, the result was declared in the year 2003, his mark sheet was given to him on 25.6.2003, he applied for scrutiny which was also done in the year 2003 and no change was found. The petitioner has come up in this writ petition in the year 2006 by which time the answer sheets have been weeded out. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the relief claimed by the petitioner for reexamination of the copies cannot be granted to him. 7. Insofar as his claim to be awarded average marks in the paper in question it was considered when he applied for scrutiny and the authority has found that no change is required in the marks given to the petitioner in the aforesaid paper. 8. The examiner is the expert who awards marks to the answers. 7. Insofar as his claim to be awarded average marks in the paper in question it was considered when he applied for scrutiny and the authority has found that no change is required in the marks given to the petitioner in the aforesaid paper. 8. The examiner is the expert who awards marks to the answers. The Courts are not examiners and hence cannot re-assess the answers given for the purpose of awarding marks. Issues such as wrong tabulation of marks awarded or not including marks awarded can be looked into by the Courts by summoning the relevant records. If there is discrepancy in the marks awarded in the answer sheet from that in the tabulation sheet or mark sheet then too it can be ascertained from the record. But to seek relief for awarding particular marks to the answers given is highly improper and the prayer requires to be rejected with costs. 9. The answer sheets can also be looked into for claims that the examiner has not awarded marks to all the answers. But the marks awarded to an answer by the examiner and as confirmed on scrutiny by the re-examination of the answer cannot now entitle the petitioner to persist for being given more marks. No interference can be made in the assessment made and again re-made by the expert. Therefore, the petitioner has no legal right now which can be enforced by means of this writ petition. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, no interference is required by this Court in this writ petition. The writ petition appears to have been filed after three years only for the purpose of some vested interest to gain an undeserved advantage after lapse of a period of three years when the copies have been weeded out, therefore, the bona fide of the petitioner is itself under doubt. 11. For the aforesaid reasons the writ petition is dismissed. However, no order is passed as to costs. ————— [2010(8) ADJ 500 (DB)] ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT BEFORE : PRAKASH CHANDRA VERMA AND RAM AUTAR SINGH, JJ. SHIVALIK SAHKARI AVAS SAMITI …Petitioner Versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS …Respondents (Civil Misc. 11. For the aforesaid reasons the writ petition is dismissed. However, no order is passed as to costs. ————— [2010(8) ADJ 500 (DB)] ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT BEFORE : PRAKASH CHANDRA VERMA AND RAM AUTAR SINGH, JJ. SHIVALIK SAHKARI AVAS SAMITI …Petitioner Versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS …Respondents (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 67362 of 2005, decided on 15th July, 2010) U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973—Section 41—U.P. Industrial Area Development Act,1976—Section 12—Government Order dated 22.10.2002—Applicability of Government Order dated 22.10.2002—To New Okhla Industrial Development Authority—Question of—Considered by High Court and found that Government Order dated 22.10.2002, issued under Section 41—Is applicable to New Okhla Industrial Development Authority by virtue of Section 12 because Section 41 has been adopted in toto by incorporation—This Government Order has been issued after enforcement of both the Acts—It has been addressed to Vice-Chairman of Development Authorities, U.P.—This would mean that by reference it is also addressed to Chief Executive Officer of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority in view of Section 12(c)—Reasons given in this Government Order for holding that it is not applicable to New Okhla Industrial Development Authority—Are contrary to Section 12(c)—As such, quashed. [Para 4] Result; Order Accordingly. Counsel : Rakesh Pande and Rohit Upadhyay for the Petitioner; C.S.C., Anurag Khanna, V.P. Mathur and Ramendra Pratap Singh for the Respondents. JUDGMENT By the Court.—This is a second writ petition by which the petitioner has questioned the applicability of the Government Order dated 22.10.2002 contained in Annexure 8 to the writ petition which has been issued under Section 41 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act. 2. In the first writ petition, a Division Bench of this Court refrained itself to decide the question and remitted the matter to the State Government to take a decision as to whether the aforesaid Government Order is applicable to New Okhla Industrial Development Authority or not though the Division bench had noticed the relevant provision of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act as well as Section 12 of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act 3. Section 41 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act is reproduced as follows: “Control by State Government.—(1) The (Authority, the Chairman or the Vice-Chairman) shall carry out such directions as may be issued to it from time to time by the State Government for the efficient administration of this Act. Section 41 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act is reproduced as follows: “Control by State Government.—(1) The (Authority, the Chairman or the Vice-Chairman) shall carry out such directions as may be issued to it from time to time by the State Government for the efficient administration of this Act. (2) If in, or in connection with, the exercise of its powers and discharge of its function by the (Authority, the Chairman or the Vice-Chairman) under this Act many dispute arises between the (Authority, the Chairman or the Vice-Chairman) and the State Government the decision of the State Government on such dispute shall be final. (3) The State Government may, at any time, either on its own motion or on application made to it in this behalf, call for the records of any case disposed of or order passed by the (Authority, or the Chairman) for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed or directing issued and may pass such order or issue such direction in relation thereto as it may thing fit. Provided that the State Government shall not pass an order prejudicial to any person without affording such person a reasonable opportunity or being heard. (4) Every order of the State Government made in exercise of the powers conferred by this Act shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court.” Under Section 41 sub-clause (1) the Government is empowered to issue orders for efficient administration of this Act (Urban Planning and Development Act). Section 41 has been made applicable to New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, which is created under the Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 by Section 12. Section 12 of the Act reads as under : “12. Section 41 has been made applicable to New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, which is created under the Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 by Section 12. Section 12 of the Act reads as under : “12. Applications of certain provisions of President’s Act XI of 1973—The provision of Chapter VII and Sections 30, 32, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 53 and 58 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, as re-encted and modified by the Uttar Pradesh President’s Act (Re-enactment with Modifications) Act, 1974, shall mutatis mutandis apply to the Authority with adaptation that- (a) any reference to the aforesaid Act shall be deemed to be a reference to this Act; (b) Any reference to the Authority constituted under the aforesaid Act shall be deemed to be a reference to the Authority constituted under this Act; and (c) any reference to the Vice-Chairman of the Authority shall be deemed to be a reference to the Chief Executive officer of the Authority.” 4. A perusal of Section 12 aforesaid shows that Section 41 has been adopted in toto and adoption of Section is by incorporation. Clause (c) of Section 12 clarifies that in an reference to the Vice-Chairman of the authority shall be deemed to be a reference to Chief Executive officer of the authority(created under the U.P.Area Development Act). The Government order dated 22.10.2002 has been issued after the enforcement of both the above Acts. The Government Order has been addressed to the Vice-Chairman of the Development Authorities U.P. That will mean that by reference it is also addressed to the Chief Executive Officer of the New Okha Industrial Development Authority by virtue of clause (c) of Section 12 of U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976. Thus it is beyond doubt that the Government Order is applicable to the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority. The impugned Government Order in which various reasons have been given for holding that the Government Order is not applicable to New Okhla Industrial Development Authority is contrary to the provisions of clause (c) of Section 12 of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976. Therefore, the order dated 14/8/2005 is quashed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The Government Order dated 22.10.2002 is held to be applicable on the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, created under the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act if it is subsisting. Therefore, the order dated 14/8/2005 is quashed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The Government Order dated 22.10.2002 is held to be applicable on the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, created under the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act if it is subsisting. The Chief Executive officer is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid Government Order and give relief to him in accordance with law. —————