Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3532 (ALL)

Komal Singh v. State of U. P.

2015-11-16

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, YASHWANT VARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT Yashwant Varma, J. This special appeal has arisen from a judgment and order of the learned Single Judge by which while dismissing the writ petition a direction has been issued to the Registrar General to lodge a complaint with the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 195. It appears from the record that a writ petition was filed in the name of Shakeel Ahmad for seeking a writ of certiorari challenging an order dated 20 August 2015 passed by the Joint Director of Education and for a mandamus restraining the authorities from interfering in his working as an officiating Principal of Azad Memorial Inter College, Dasna, Ghaziabad. The affidavit in support of the writ petition was deposed to by Komal Singh, the appellant. In paragraph 1 of his affidavit, the appellant stated as follows: "1. That the deponent is the pairokar and doing pairivi on behalf of the petitioner in the above mentioned writ petition and as such he is fully acquainted with the facts and circumstances deposed to below." 2. The learned Single Judge has recorded that the Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner admitted before the Court that Komal Singh, the deponent, was never instructed by Shakeel Ahmad to file a writ petition and the writ petition has been filed on the instruction of some person called Ravi. The Court was also informed that Komal Singh had never met Shakeel Ahmad and does not know Shakeel Ahmad. Moreover, Shakeel Ahmad in whose name the petition was filed was present before the learned Single Judge in person and specifically stated that he does not recognize Komal Singh and had never instructed him to file any writ petition on his behalf. These facts, prima facie, are serious enough to sustain the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. It appears that the writ petition was filed in the name of one Shakeel Ahmad by a person namely the appellant who was not authorized to do so. 3. In the circumstances, no case for interference in the special appeal is made out. The special appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.