Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1465 (ALL)

RAMESH CHANDRA SHUKLA v. STATE OF U. P.

2014-05-06

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Heard Sri M.D. Mishra, for the petitioners. 2. This writ petition was listed for “admission” in the cause list on 5.5.2014. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that writ petition was heard for admission on 6.11.2012. The Court, after hearing the arguments, recorded prima facie satisfaction that writ petition raised substantial issue for consideration and issued notice to the respondents. Chapter XXII Rule 2 of the High Court Rules, provides that if the Court does not find sufficient reasons to admit the application it may reject it. Where the application is not so rejected, notice thereof shall be served on such opposite parties named in the application and on such other persons, if any, as the Court may direct. After issue of the notice, the writ petition is liable to be listed for “hearing” on its turn. Chapter VIII Rule 33 confers exclusive jurisdiction to Chief Justice to expedite the hearing of the case. Hearing of the writ petition on merit can only be done when writ petition is listed for “hearing” either on its turn or expedited by Chief Justice. The writ petition is wrongly listed for admission and should be listed for hearing on its turn. 3. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner. In exercise of powers under Article 225 of Constitution of India, Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 has been framed. Chapter XXII provides procedure for the writ under Article 226 of the Constitution, other than a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus. Rule 1 provides for filing/receiving of the writ petition by Division Bench or Single Judge of the natures as specified in it. Rule 2 provides for notice which reads as “if the Court does not find sufficient reasons to admit the application it may reject it. Where the application is not so rejected, notice thereof shall be served on such opposite parties”. According to the counsel for the petitioner as the notice has been issued 6.11.2012 as such the writ petition be treated to be admitted. The order dated 6.11.2012 directing the writ petition to be listed for admission is not according to the provisions of Rule 2 and has no meaning and it shall be deemed to be admitted. 4. The word “admit” means “to accept for the purpose of consideration” as given in Law Lexicon. The order dated 6.11.2012 directing the writ petition to be listed for admission is not according to the provisions of Rule 2 and has no meaning and it shall be deemed to be admitted. 4. The word “admit” means “to accept for the purpose of consideration” as given in Law Lexicon. The Bench hearing the writ petition under Chapter XXII Rule 1 of the High Court Rules has been given power to admit or reject it. Admission under Chapter XXII Rule 1 is not automatic. When Bench hearing the writ petition under Chapter XXII Rule 1 itself directed the writ petition to be listed for admission, then merely notice has been issued to the respondents it cannot be deemed to be admitted. There is no bar to hear the respondents at the admission stage. Chapter XXII Rule 5 provides for lodging caveat. If a respondent files caveat then the petitioner is required to give him notice of the writ petition and he is usually heard at the time of admission. Thus it is clear that the Court can hear the respondents at the time of admission and for that purpose it has discretion to issue notice to the respondent before admission. The controversy as to whether the respondents have right to be heard at the stage of admission came for consideration before Division Bench of this Court in Chandrajit v. Ganeshiya, AIR 1987 All 360 (DB), in the matter arising out of caveat under Section 148-A C.P.C. and Division Bench held that the caveator has right to oppose admission and can be heard. In view of Division Bench judgment, Chapter XXII Rule 5 has been amended by Notification No. 276/VIII-C-2 dated 4.7.1989, providing Rule for lodging caveat in the writ petition. A Full Bench of this Court in Satya Pal and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2000 Cr LJ 569 (FB), upheld the practice of this Court to issue notice to the respondent pending admission and deciding the writ petition finally at the admission stage. Thus there is no substance in the arguments that on the notice being issued, the writ petition shall be deemed to be admitted and order directing the writ petition to be listed for “admission” is contrary to Chapter XXII Rule 2. 5. It has been consistently held by Courts in the world that Rules/procedure are framed to achieve the object of speedy justice. 5. It has been consistently held by Courts in the world that Rules/procedure are framed to achieve the object of speedy justice. The Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra v. Pramod Gupta, AIR 2003 SC 2588 , held that Laws of procedure are meant to regulate effectively, assist and aid the object of doing substantial and real justice and not to foreclose even an adjudication on merits of substantial rights of citizen under personal, property and other laws. Procedure has always been viewed as the handmaid of justice and not meant to hamper the cause of justice or sanctify miscarriage of justice. 6. Supreme Court in Puran Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 SC 1092 , held that the object of Article 226 is to provide a quick and inexpensive remedy to aggrieved parties. Power has consequently been vested in the High Courts to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases any Government, within the jurisdiction of the High Court, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari. Sole object of writ jurisdiction to provide quick and inexpensive remedy to the person who invokes such jurisdiction is likely to be defeated. When the High Court exercises extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, it aims at securing a very speedy and efficacious remedy to a person, whose legal or constitutional right has been infringed. If all the elaborate and technical rules laid down in the Code are to be applied to writ proceedings the very object and purpose is likely to be defeated. 7. While dealing with the Case Management, Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Assn. (II) v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344 , provides as follows: 1. Writ petitions: The High Court shall, at the stage of admission or issuing notice before admission categorise the writ petitions other than the writ of habeas corpus, into three categories depending on the urgency with which the matter should be dealt with: the fast track, the normal track and the slow track. The petitions in the fast track shall invariably be disposed of within a period not exceeding six months while the petitions in the normal track should not take longer than a year. The petitions in the fast track shall invariably be disposed of within a period not exceeding six months while the petitions in the normal track should not take longer than a year. The petitions in the slow track, subject to the pendency of other cases in the Court, should ordinarily be disposed of within a period of two years. 8. Thus it is now well-settled that High Court is competent to issue notice to the respondents before admission and can decide the writ petition finally at the stage of admission. Present writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. The various proceedings provided under U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 are summary proceeding and require to be decided expeditiously. Therefore writ petitions arising out of the orders passed in the proceedings U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 also require for speedy disposal. With the object of speedy disposal, notices has been issued to the respondents, pending admission so that the writ petition can be decided at the admission stage. 9. The objection raised by the counsel for the petitioner is overruled. List for admission in next cause list. On that day writ petition be heard finally.