Disposed

Sita Ram and Anr. v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Legislative Section 1 Legislative Deptt. Lko and Ors.

Allahabad HC19 Dec 2024WRIA/12384/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad disposed of the writ petition pursuant to the Supreme Court's order, noting that the proceedings are sub judice at the apex court regarding the validity of the same Act.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; protection granted against consequences of pending apex court proceedings.

Sita Ram and Anr. Vs State of U.P… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:85382-DB

¶2

Court No. - 1

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12384 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Sita Ram And Anr. Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Legislative Section 1 Legislative Deptt. Lko And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Nimish Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Nimish Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents.

¶7

At the outset, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents has placed a copy of the order dated 29.08.2023 passed by the Hon'ble apex court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1458/2020 which reads as under:

¶8

"1. An adjournment letter has been moved by learned counsel for the respondents on account of non-availability of the learned Attorney General, who is engaged before the Constitution Bench.

¶9

2. List on 03rd October, 2023."

¶10

It is not in dispute that the subject matter of the present writ petitions and the matter before the Hon'ble apex court fixed on 14.01.2025 is one and the same i.e. the validity of U.P. Act No.1 of 2021 which was previously brought in through an Ordinance giving rise to the writ petition before the apex court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

¶11

Simultaneous proceedings before this Court and Hon'ble

¶12

apex court on one and the same subject can not proceed for the reason that the time frame within which the courts of law function is a public property and its use can't be allowed to achieve futile results. We have no manner of doubt that this Court is bound by the decision of Hon'ble the apex court on the same issue.

¶13

The question that arises is whether the Court may proceed or discharge the proceedings under some protection to the petitioners. It is to be noted that the consequences which are to fall as a result of pending proceedings before the apex court are clear. The vires of the Act shall either be upheld or turned down. In case the vires of the impugned Act is upheld, all the writ petitions in that event are liable to be dismissed and on the result of proceedings being otherwise, the writ petitioners shall be entitled to the benefit of the judgment accordingly and the State shall obey the verdict in favour of the petitioners to the extent applicable.

¶14

Having clarified the position as above, we hereby dispose of the present writ petition accordingly and the protection so granted shall mutatis mutandi apply. We equally leave it open to the parties to avail the opportunity of hearing before the apex court, if so advised.

¶15

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) (Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.)

¶16

Order Date :- 19.12.2024 Ram.

¶17

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sita Ram and Anr. v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Legislative Section 1 Legislative Deptt. Lko and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sita Ram and Anr. v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Legislative Section 1 Legislative Deptt. Lko and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Irigation Deptt.Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Others Vs Jagdamba Prasad Yadav and Another

M/S Al-Haq Foods Pvt. Ltd. Thru Its Director Navin Kumar Bhambri vs State of U.P. Thru Addl. Chief/Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Environment Forests and Climate Change and Ors.

Dileep Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin./Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Energy U.P. Govt. Lko. and Others

Suresh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Lok Nirman Vibhag Lko. and 5 Others

Mahesh Kumar Saxena and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Minor Irrigation Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Parmal Singh and Ors. Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Legislative Section 1 Legislative Deptt. Lko and Ors.