Dismissed

Smt. Kavita Yadav v. C/M. C.K.I.C. and Others

Allahabad HC21 May 2019SPLAD/299/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an intra-court appeal as not maintainable. The Court relied on Division Bench and Full Bench precedents holding that special appeals are barred under Chapter-VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 when the impugned order was passed by a Single Judge exercising superintendence power under Article 227 of the Constitution.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt. Kavita Yadav Vs C/M. C.K.I.C. and Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 34

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 299 of 1996

¶4

Appellant :- Smt. Kavita Yadav Respondent :- C/M. C.K.I.C. And Others Counsel for Appellant :- R.N. Singh,V.K. Chandel Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.,C.B. Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Sri M.K.S. Chandel, Advocate holding brief of Sri V.K. Chandel, learned counsel for appellant and perused the material available on record.

¶7

This appeal was directed to be connected with Special Appeal No. 144 of 1995 (Kavita Yadav Vs. Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools and Others) and the same has already been disposed of vide order dated 03.05.2010.

¶8

Moreover, this intra-Court appeal under Chapter-VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 has arisen from order dated 28.11.1996 whereby exparte interim order dated 06.09.1996 granted in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28791 of 1996 has been confirmed.

¶9

In such writ petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution, in view of Division Bench judgment of this Court in Vajara Yojna Seed Farm and Ors Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court II and Ors. (2003) 1 UPLBEC 496, no intra court appeal is maintainable. The Division Bench in para 64 of judgment held :

¶10

“64. From the above discussions and looking into the provisions of U.P. Act No. 14 of 1962 as amended by Amendment Act of 1981 and Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court, 1952, special appeal is excluded from a judgment of one Judge of this Court in following categories :-

¶11

(i) Judgment of one Judge passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the Superintendence of the Court.

¶12

¶13

(ii) Judgment of one Judge in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

¶14

(iii) Judgment of one Judge made in the exercise of its power of Superintendence.

¶15

(iv) Judgment of one Judge made in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction.

¶16

(v) Judgment of order of one Judge made in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment, order or award of a Tribunal, Court or Statutory Arbitrator made or purported to be more in the exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the matters enumerated in State List or Concurrent List.

¶17

(vi) Judgment or order of one Judge made in exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment, order or award by the Court or any officer or authority made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act.”

¶18

Similar controversy came up before Full Bench arising out of provisions of U.P. Scheduled commodities Distribution Order, 2004, in Sheet Gupta vs. State of U.P. and others AIR 2010 All. 46 where matter was considered in detail and law was finally laid down in para 15 thereof. In respect of any order passed by a learned Single Judge in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or 227 of Constitution in respect of any judgment or award by the Tribunal Court or Statutory Arbitrator and certain orders made by a Jude in exercise of the powers under Article 226 or 227 of Constitution, a Special Appeal has been held to be barred.

¶19

Para 15 of Full Bench judgment in Sheet Gupta (supra) is relevant, which reads as under :

¶20

“Having given our anxious consideration to the various plea raised by the learned counsel for the parties, we find that from

¶21

¶22

the perusal of Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules a special appeal shall lie before this Court from the judgment passed by one Judge of the Court. However, such special appeal will not lie in the following circumstances:

¶23

The judgment passed by one Judge in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the Superintendence of the Court;

¶24

the order made by one Judge in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction;

¶25

the order made by one Judge in the exercise of the power of Superintendence of the High Court;

¶26

the order made by one Judge in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction;

¶27

the order made by one Judge in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India in respect of any judgment, order or award by

¶28

(i) the tribunal,

¶29

(ii) Court or

¶30

(iii) statutory arbitrator

¶31

made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act. with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India;

¶32

the order made by one Judge in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India in respect of any judgment, order or award of

¶33

(i) the Government or

¶34

(ii) any officer or

¶35

(iii) authority,

¶36

made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any such Act, i.e. under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the matters

¶37

¶38

enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.

¶39

Aforesaid authorities have also been followed by Division Bench of this Court (Lucknow Bench) in Abhishek Sahu vs. Civil Judge (S.D.), Lucknow and Ors. 2014(11) ADJ 407.

¶40

Appeal is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable.

¶41

Order Date :- 21.5.2019 Siddhant Sahu

Smt. Kavita Yadav v. C/M. C.K.I.C. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt. Kavita Yadav v. C/M. C.K.I.C. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brij Bali Singh Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Secondary Edu. and Others

Brij Bali Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

State of U.P. Thru Prin. Sec. Shiksha Anu. Lko. and Others Vs Smt. Karuna Dubey

Y.K. Mishra Vs Nagar Maha Palika

Smt. Shashi Srivastava Vs Rohit Kumar and Others

Tej Bal Singh and Others Vs Rajeev Shukla and Another