Disposed

Kripa Shankar Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC21 Jan 2020WPIL/6521/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL, the petitioner sought directions to produce records, declare appointments void, and recover misappropriated funds regarding an institution. Due to a long lapse in prosecution, the court disposed of the petition but directed respondents to conduct an enquiry within six months to address past irregularities.

What did the court decide?

Directions to hold an enquiry within six months into illegal appointments and salary payments; writ petition otherwise disposed of.

Kripa Shankar Tiwari Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Chief Justice's Court

¶2

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 6521 of 2008

¶3

Petitioner :- Kripa Shankar Tiwari Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- P.K. Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anubhav Shukla,D.S.M. Tripathi,Daya Shanker Mani Tripahti,H.P.Yadav,Krishnaji Khare,P.N.Tripathi,Ram Shiromani Shukla,Rama Shankar Shukla,Saurabh Singh,Shivendu Ojha

¶4

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Chief Justice Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

This petition for writ has been preferred have following relief:

¶6

"i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents no. 2 to 6 to produce entire records in relation to the appointment of respondent nos. 9 to 30 and also to produce other documents which are related to the institution namely Inter College Newahria, District Jaunpur

¶7

ii issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring the appointments of the respondent nos. 9 to 30 nonest and void under law and may recover entire amount of the salaries so paid to them by the State exchequer and a full fledged enquiry be conducted in the matter.

¶8

iii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents no. 5 to 6 to stop the disbursement of the salary in favour of respondents no. 9 to 30.

¶9

iv issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents no. 5 to 6 to recover the public money taken by the Principal (respondent no. 9) in the name of the construction of the building and same may deposit in the account of guardian funds of the said Institution.

¶10

v. issue any other writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to protect the interest of justice.

¶11

vi. Award the costs of the petition."

¶12

This Court by an order dated 19.02.2016 directed the respondent No. 1 to file a personal affidavit after summoning the original records in the matter of appointment of respondent Nos. 09 to 30, with reference to the following facts:-

¶13

(A). Whether these persons were appointed any existing vacancies duly created by the institution?

¶14

(B). Whether the procedure prescribed for appointment on the respective posts under the statutory rules were followed or not, copy of the advertisement, if any, made shall be referred to, for the purpose? and

¶15

(C). whether the selection was made by the Competent Authority / Selection Committee or not?

¶16

It appears that an enquiry was made by the respondents and payments of certain persons were found illegal. It is also brought to our notice that after issuance of the directions aforesaid, the respondents also stopped the payment of salary to the respondent Nos. 13 to 30. The writ petition came to be dismissed for the want of prosecution on 27.02.2018 and the same was restored subsequently. However, during the period interregnum salary of some of the private respondents was released. Taking note of the fact aforesaid, the Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 18.12.2018, directed the Additional Chief Secretary, Secondary Education to remain present before the Court to explain as to how the payment of salary was released and why such payment may not be recovered from the authorities of the Education Department of the district concerned.

¶17

None is present on behalf of the petitioner to pursue the petition for writ. It also reveals from perusal of the order sheets that nobody is putting appearance on behalf of the petitioner from last about two years.

¶18

Be that as it may, looking to nature of the reliefs claimed by the petitioner in this PIL, we reiterate that necessary enquiry in accordance with law be made on the points referred by the Court in its order dated 19.02.2016. The respondents shall be at liberty to take appropriate action after holding an enquiry if any wrong is found.

¶19

The writ petition, with the directions above, is hence disposed of.

¶20

The enquiry, in terms above, is required to be within a period of six months from today.

¶21

The Writ -C No. 13464 of 2019, (Committee of Management Inter College and Another vs. State of U.P. and 03 Others) be detagged from record of this petition.

¶22

Order Date :- 21.1.2020 AS Rathor

¶23

(Samit Gopal,J.) (Govind Mathur, C.J.)

Kripa Shankar Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kripa Shankar Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rinku Sagar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

raj kishor and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 23 Ors.

Radhey Shyam Verma Vs U.P. Cooperative Bank and 2 Ors.

Arun Prakash Pachauri Vs District Magistrate/Collector Orai and Others

Shyam Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Principal Sri Harhangi Sanskrit U.Madh. Vid. and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others