Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1481 (ALL)

State of U. P. v. Sharad Tilara

2016-04-21

UMESH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA, V.K.SHUKLA

body2016
JUDGMENT Ref: Delay Condonation Application For the reasons stated in the affidavit, filed in support of Delay Condonation Application, as the same constitutes sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing Special Appeal, the Delay Condonation Application is allowed. Special Appeal is treated to have been filed well within time. Ref: Special Appeal State of U.P. & five others are before this Court assailing the validity of the order of learned Single Judge of this Court dated 2.11.2015 passed in Writ Petition No. 61157 of 2015 (Sharad Tilara Vs. State of U.P. & others). The ground of challenge that has been raised by the State before us is to the effect that learned Single Judge, at the point of time, when he has proceeded to allow the aforementioned writ petition, at the said point of time, he has proceeded to place reliance on a judgment of this Court dated 4.9.2015 passed in Writ-A No. 50782 of 2014 (Mahaveer Singh and 2 others Vs. State of U.P. and three others) whereas the judgment in the case of Mahaveer Singh and two others in Writ-A No. 50782 of 2014, has been reversed by a Special Appeal Bench in Special Appeal Defective No. 884 of 2015 (State of U.P. and three others Vs. Mahaveer Singh and two others) and, in view of this, once the dictum laid in the case of Mahaveer Singh and two others has been reversed by the Special Appeal Bench, then the said judgment in question on its face value is unsustainable. Sri Sanjay Kumar, Advcoate, appearing for the private respondent, has tried to contend before this Court that against the judgment passed in Special Appeal Defective No. 884 of 2015 (State of U.P. and three others Vs. Mahaveer Singh and two others), special leave to appeal has been filed before the Apex Court and the said special leave to appeal has been converted in regular appeal and matter is pending and engaging the attention of Apex Court and the facts of the respondent petitioner is distinguishable. Mahaveer Singh and two others), special leave to appeal has been filed before the Apex Court and the said special leave to appeal has been converted in regular appeal and matter is pending and engaging the attention of Apex Court and the facts of the respondent petitioner is distinguishable. The fact of the matter is that as far as learned Single Judge is concerned, learned Single Judge, at the point of time, when he has proceeded to decide the writ petition in question, he has proceeded to make a mention that the case in hand is fully covered by a decision of this Court dated 4.9.2015 passed in Writ-A No. 50782 of 2014 (Mahaveer Singh and 2 others Vs. State of U.P. and three others) and based on the same, the writ petition in question has been disposed of on the premises of the aforementioned judgment dated 4.9.2015 passed in Writ-A No. 50782 of 2014 (Mahaveer Singh and 2 others Vs. State of U.P. and three others). Once the judgment passed in the case of Mahaveer Singh and two others in Writ-A No. 50782 of 2014 has not at all found favour by the Special Appeal Bench in Special Appeal Defective No. 884 of 2015 (State of U.P. and three others Vs. Mahaveer Singh and two others) and against the preposition of law, that has been mentioned therein, it may be true that civil appeal is pending before the Apex Court but the fact of the matter is that as the said judgment passed in Special Appeal Defective No. 884 of 2015 (State of U.P. and three others Vs. Mahaveer Singh and two others) still holding the field with full force, thus the very foundation and basis of passing of order goes and, accordingly, the order dated 4.9.2015 also cannot be sustained. The order passed by another co-ordinate Bench binds us, as there is no reason or occasion for us to take a different or contrary view. In view of the above, present special appeal is allowed. The order dated 2.11.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 61157 of 2015 (Sharad Tilara Vs. State of U.P. & others) is hereby quashed and set-aside. No order as to costs.