Allowed¶19

Ram Baran Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 2 Others

Allahabad HC18 Dec 2024WRIA/9854/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ram Baran Singh v. State of U.P., WRIT - A No. - 9854 of 2024 (Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Alok Mathur, J., 18.12.2024): penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- for non-registration of FIR imposed by Superintendent of Police, Auraiya in compliance of NHRC order dated 04.06.2021; no show cause notice or opportunity of hearing; gross violation of natural justice; violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; order casting stigma and imposing penalty without inquiry illegal and arbitrary; impugned order quashed; matter remitted to opposite party no.3 for fresh order in accordance with law; writ petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 18.06.2024 quashed; matter remitted to opposite party no.3 with liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. ¶19

Ram Baran Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 18.06.2024 quashed; matter remitted to opposite party no.3 with liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 18.06.2024 imposing a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- on the petitioner for non-registration of the FIR is sustainable when, per the petitioner, no show cause notice was given to him and no opportunity of hearing was afforded prior to its passing. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

The impugned order merely reiterated the findings recorded by the National Human Rights Commission and, in the entire order, there is no mention of any show cause notice given to the petitioner or any reply submitted in his defence; it was therefore passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and is illegal and arbitrary, in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

An order which impinges upon the civil rights of an individual cannot be passed without giving an opportunity; the impugned order, apart from casting a stigma on the petitioner, penalized him with Rs.1,00,000/- for dereliction of his duties, and it was mandatory for the respondents to have conducted an inquiry in accordance with law.

¶16

Key takeaways

The impugned order, being illegal and arbitrary, is quashed; the matter is remitted to opposite party no.3, who shall be at liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WRIT - A No. - 9854 of 2024, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Alok Mathur, J., decided 18.12.2024) - Impugned order dated 18.06.2024 of the Superintendent of Police, Auraiya, passed in compliance of the National Human Rights Commission's order dated 04.06.2021, held the petitioner responsible for non-registration of the FIR relating to the death of Vimla Devi and imposed a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- payable into the State Treasury - The impugned order merely reiterated the NHRC findings and made no mention of any show cause notice or any reply in defence - Order passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice; illegal and arbitrary, in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India - An order impinging upon the civil rights of an individual and casting a stigma cannot be passed without giving an opportunity; inquiry in accordance with law was mandatory - Impugned order quashed; matter remitted to opposite party no.3 with liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law - Writ petition allowed.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:85135

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9854 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Ram Baran Singh

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶7

Sri Ramesh Singh, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents no.1 to 3 and Sri Paavan Awasthi, learned counsel has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent no.4.

¶8

It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the genesis of the dispute in the present case is on account of the fact that on 24.04.2017 an unknown body of a lady was found near GRP Phapund. Subsequently, the body was identified to be of Vimla Devi, who was the daughter-in-law of Jay Narayan. Jay Narayan tried to lodge a complaint with regard to the death of his daughter-in-law at two police station but none of the police station recorded the first information report disputing the territorial jurisdiction of the police station.

¶9

It is in the aforesaid circumstances that Jay Narayan made a complaint to the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi where his compliant was entertained and for the delay in

¶10

lodging the FIR by the police official, it was held that the same

¶11

amounted to violation of the Human Rights and held the State Government to be vicarious liable to compensate a victim and the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh was directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to next of kin of the deceased within six weeks.The National Human Rights Commission also directed an inquiry to be conducted with regard to the delay in lodging of the first information report.

¶12

It is in compliance of the directions of the National Human Rights Commission's order dated 04.06.2021 that the impugned order dated 18.06.2024 has been passed by the Superintendent of Police, Auraiya. In its order, he has narrated the contents of the order of the National Human Rights Commission and has held that the petitioner was responsible for not registering the first information report and consequently, has penalized the petitioner with penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid into the State Treasury. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 18.06.2024 has submitted that the National Human Rights Commission had directed the recovery of the said amount from the guilty police personnel in accordance with law. He has further stated that neither was any show cause notice given to him nor any opportunity of hearing afforded prior to passing of the impugned order. He further submits that he was not the person responsible for lodging the first information report and therefore, even on merits the said order is infirmed and is liable

¶13

to be set aside.

¶14

Counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petition but did not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶15

This Court has heard the rival contentions and also perused the record.

¶16

A perusal of the impugned order indicates that merely on reiterating the findings recorded by the National Human Rights Commission, the Superintendent of Police, Auraiya by means of the impugned order has held the petitioner to be responsible for non-registration of the first information report pertaining to the death of Vimla Devi near the railway track. In the entire order, there is no mention as to whether any show cause notice was given to the petitioner or that any reply was submitted to him in his defence. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the said order has been passed in gross violation of principle of nature justice and therefore, is illegal and arbitrary in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the order which impinges upon the civil rights of an individual can not be passed without giving any opportunity and the present order part from casting a stigma on the petitioner has penalized him for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for dereliction of his duties and it was mandatory for the respondents to have conducted an inquiry in accordance with

¶17

law.

¶18

In light of the above, the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary and accordingly is quashed. The matter is remitted to the opposite party no.3 and he shall be at liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

¶19

The writ petition is allowed .

¶20

[ Alok Mathur,J. ]

¶21

Order Date :- 18.12.2024 KR

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Baran Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Baran Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajendra Kumar Rawat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Finance Lko. and 2 Others

Pyare Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 5 Others

Uma Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 4 Others

Kaushal Kishor Rawat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Lko. and 4 Others

Bhagwandeen Vs State of U.P. Thru. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lok Nirman Vibhag Lko. and 3 Others

Neeraj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko. and 3 Others