Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 96 (ALL)

Prem Pal Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

2010-01-07

PRADEEP KANT, RITU RAJ AWASTHI

body2010
Hon'ble R.R. Awasthi, J. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh and Sri Pradeep Chandola and Sri Anuj Kudesia for the respondents. This special appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 16.12.09 passed by the learned Single Judge, who has dismissed the writ petition of the appellant after holding that this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition, as the relieving orders have been issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Etah and Agra for joining in the State of Uttarakhand. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the relief clause in the writ petition, which also asks for quashing of the order dated 9.9.09 passed by the Director General of Police, which directs the concerned authority to relieve the persons immediately in pursuance of the aforesaid directives and consequential orders have been passed by the local authority. That being so, it cannot be said that this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that because the appellant met a serious accident in which his leg and hand got fractured in the year 2003-04, he is not in a position to work in the State of Uttarakhand and, therefore, he may be allowed to continue in the State of U.P. We do not find any ground for interference by the High Court in this regard. However, learned counsel for the appellant says that the appellant is willing to join at Uttarakhand, but prays that his representation may be directed to be decided. We, thus, while holding that this Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the petition, decline to entertain the plea of the appellant regarding the stay in the State of U.P., as revocation or stay of the impugned order on compassionate ground lies within the domain of the concerned authority, but direct that the appellant may make a fresh representation to the authority concerned, and if such a representation is made within fifteen days, the same shall be considered and disposed of, by the authority concerned, expeditiously, in accordance with law, say within a maximum period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, alongwith the representation. This order does not mean that we have, in any way, stayed the joining of the appellant at Uttarakhand and, therefore, we clarify that the appellant may join at Uttarakhand, but his joining and continuance at Uttarakhand shall depend upon the out come of the representation so made. The special appeal is disposed of accordingly.