Dismissed¶38

Sadhu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC12 Dec 2024WRIC/10387/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dead-person / proxy writ petition dismissed; vakalatnama and affidavit signed by son Dharam Pal, not deceased petitioner Sadhu; Stamp Reporting Section scrutiny lapse (second instance after Awadh Ram, Writ-C No. 8799 of 2024, order dated 12.11.2024); registry staff shortage (60-80 files per day, 262 defect checks per file); report of Joint Registrar (Listing) forwarded to Registrar General; apology of official accepted; counsel cautioned; liberty to file fresh writ petition; Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; order dated 12.12.2024.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the aggrieved person to prefer a fresh writ petition, if maintainable in law. ¶38

Sadhu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the aggrieved person to prefer a fresh writ petition, if maintainable in law.

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition should be dismissed on the ground that it was filed in the name of a dead person - the petitioner Sadhu having died years earlier - with the vakalatnama and affidavit signed by his son Dharam Pal rather than by the petitioner. +1 more

¶38

Court's answer

The writ petition is dismissed because it was filed in the name of a dead person; liberty is granted to the aggrieved person to prefer a fresh writ petition if it is maintainable in law.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

The reasons given by the Reporting Section for the lapse are to be brought to the notice of the Registrar General so that effective steps may be considered to remedy the deficiencies pointed out by the reporting section.

¶37

Key takeaways

The Senior Registrar is directed to forward the report of the Joint Registrar (Listing) to the Registrar General for considering provision of adequate staff, shortage of staff appearing to be a major reason for the lapse.ratio¶37
The apology tendered by the concerned official of the Reporting Section is accepted.ratio¶37
Ms. Anita, Advocate for the petitioner, is cautioned to be careful in future while filing petitions.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (Writ-C No. 10387 of 2024, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; Division Bench of Rajan Roy and Brij Raj Singh, JJ.; order dated 12.12.2024) DISMISSED as filed in the name of a dead person. The petitioner 'Sadhu' was reported dead (4-5 years ago per the Standing Counsel; about 8-9 years ago per his son); the vakalatnama and affidavit were signed by Dharam Pal and not by the petitioner, who explained that a misunderstanding on the part of the petitioner's counsel resulted in filing in the father's name. This was the second instance of the Stamp/Reporting Section failing to detect such defects despite the caution in the Court's earlier order dated 12.11.2024 in Writ-C No. 8799 of 2024 (Awadh Ram v. State of U.P.), where a proxy writ petition had been dismissed. On the Senior Registrar's report attributing the lapse to heavy rush of work and staff shortage (approximately 60-80 files per day; 262 types of defects to be checked per file), the Court directed that the Joint Registrar (Listing)'s report be forwarded to the Registrar General for considering provision of adequate staff, accepted the concerned official's apology, cautioned Ms. Anita, Advocate, and granted liberty to the aggrieved person to prefer a fresh writ petition if maintainable in law.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:83229-DB

¶2

Court No. - 2

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10387 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Sadhu Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shashi Kant Tripathi,Anita Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶6

1. Heard.

¶7

2. On 05.12.2024, we had passed the following order:-

¶8

"1. Learned Standing Counsel has instructions to inform the Court that petitioner Sadhu has died 4-5 years ago.

¶9

2. We asked Ms. Anita Sahni, counsel for the petitioner as to whether she has ever met the petitioner, she submitted that she has met the Pairokar.

¶10

3. From perusal of the Vakalatnama, we find that it has been signed by Dharam Pal and not by the petitioner-Sadhu. The affidavit is also of Dharam Pal.

¶11

4. This is the second case where we find that the Stamp Reporting Section is not going through the petitions. We cannot be lenient in the matter any further as the earlier leniency in Writ-C No.8799 of 2024, Awadh Ram Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others, wherein a similar situation had arisen and we had passed an order on 12.11.2024, does not appear to have had the desired effect. The said order dated 12.11.2024 reads as under:

¶12

"1.) Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record.

¶13

2.) Heard.

¶14

3.) In response to our earlier orders, the reporting section has submitted its report through the proper channel. We have perused the report. We are not satisfied with it. Merely because there was heavy rush of work, can be no excuse to omit the glaring fact that the petitioner's signature did not exist on the writ petition nor was it supported by his affidavit, most important, his signatures did not appear even on the Vakalatnama. The petition, the affidavit and Vakalatnama are all signed by one Vinod Kumar. Shri Vinod Kumar, who has signed the Vakalatnama, affidavit and the petition is present today. He says that he had come along with Awadh Ram, but to file two separate writ petitions, and had handed over his papers to Ms. Neeta Singh Chandel. He says that Awadh Ram was also present and he had requested him i.e. Vinod Kumar, to sign the affidavit on his behalf and unknowingly, he did so. The Counsel, Ms. Neeta Singh

¶15

Chandel says that she was ill and therefore, somehow, the petition got filed in the aforesaid circumstances, in the manner in which it has been filed and for which she has expressed regret.

¶16

4.) Now, the story gets complicated further by the fact that Shri Deepak Verma, Advocate has filed an affidavit on behalf of the petitioner, Awadh Ram, stating therein that the petitioner has in fact not filed the writ petition and it is a proxy writ petition which has been got filed. The affidavit said to have been filed by the petitioner, Awadh Ram, through Shri Deepak Verma, Advocate states that he has not filed Writ C No. 8799 of 2024, and on coming to know of the aforesaid fact he is submitting this affidavit that he has no knowledge of the filing of the said writ petition. The affidavit further goes on to state that Vinod Kumar, whose affidavit has been filed with the writ petition, is neither a member of the petitioner's family nor is related to him in any way, and that Vinod Kumar has filed a false affidavit.

¶17

5.) On being confronted, Shri Awadh Ram submitted that some villagers had brought him to Shri Deepak Verma, Advocate and he was made to sign some blank papers. Shri Awadh Ram says that it is he in fact, who had filed this writ petition. However, on being asked as to why he did not file his own affidavit, he had no satisfactory answer in this regard. Shri Vinod Kumar has his own story to tell, as narrated hereinabove.

¶18

6.) On a query being put, Ms. Neeta Singh Chandel, Advocate says that the writ petition which had to be filed on behalf of Shri Vinod Kumar, is being prepared for filing, meaning thereby, it has not been filed as yet.

¶19

7.) We have perused the counter affidavit of the State authorities, and there is yet another twist in the story as contained therein, as, Annexure - CA1 thereto, is an application said to have been submitted by the petitioner, Awadh Ram, stating that he had not filed this writ petition. On being confronted in this regard, Shri Awadh Ram stated that some officials of the Agriculture Department had come to him, and pressurized him to sign the said application on the ground that, if he does not do so then he will not get the benefit etc..

¶20

8.) As far as, merits of the matter is concerned, the counter affidavit says, that the opposite party no. 6 was wrongly empaneled in the list of eligible persons for grant of benefit under the scheme of the Government under which certain agricultural equipments are to be given to farmers. This endorses the case of the petitioner that the opposite party no. 6 did not belong to Block - Kaiserganj, and therefore, could not have been granted the benefits out of the funds meant for implementation of the scheme in question for Block - Kaiserganj. He, in fact, is a resident of Block - Huzurpur. It is only for this reason that the State authorities have stated in their counter affidavit that there is a 'mismap', whatever it means.

¶21

9.) The Counsel for the opposite party no. 6, Shri Amit Singh, is not present today. Shri Deepak Verma, Advocate, on being asked as to whether he had met Awadh Ram before filing his affidavit, stated that he had met Awadh Ram and also interacted with him. On being further asked, he informed that in fact, it is Shri Amit Singh, learned Counsel for the opposite party no. 6 had asked him to file the affidavit, as the writ petition was a proxy writ petition and the petitioner, Awadh Ram, had not filed it. However, when we inquired from Shri Awadh Ram, he initially stated that

¶22

he does not recognize the Counsel, Shri Deepak Verma, but thereafter, he stated that five or six papers were got signed by him. The situation gets murkier.

¶23

10.) As regards, the assertion in the counter affidavit that while submitting the online application, the petitioner, Awadh Ram, had given the mobile number of Vinod Kumar who has filed the affidavit in support of the petitioner, Shri Awadh Ram says that he does not have a mobile number. In this context, we have perused his affidavit filed through Shri Deepak Verma, Advocate wherein Awadh Ram has said that Vinod Kumar has filed false affidavit in support of the petition.

¶24

11.) In view of the aforesaid, as the writ petition is not as per rules of the Court, we dismiss the same, with liberty however to the concerned to file a fresh writ petition, if otherwise permissible in law.

¶25

12.) The learned Counsel appearing for the parties are cautioned to be more careful in future, otherwise, this could result in serious consequences.

¶26

13.) While filing a fresh writ petition, the petitioner shall annex a copy of this order, so will Shri Vinod Kumar, if he prefers any writ petition.

¶27

14.) A copy of the counter affidavit filed by the State authorities has not been served upon Ms. Neeta Singh Chandel, Advocate, though it has been served upon Shri Deepak Verma, Advocate. Let it be served upon her within three days, so that her record may be complete in this regard.

¶28

15.) The Reporting Section is also directed to be cautions while processing the writ petitions, as, in future, if such lapses are repeated, then it may have serious consequences. The Officer in charge of the Reporting Section who supervises its work, shall counsel all the officers and employees who are involved in reporting of writ petitions appropriately, so that such lapses do not occur again.

¶29

16.) Our order shall not come in the way of the Director, Agriculture in getting an inquiry conducted in the matter, if he so chooses, to ascertain the involvement of any officer of the Agriculture Department in this entire matter, and as to how, the name of opposite party no. 6 figured in the name of eligible persons, if he was not eligible. In fact, it would better if such an inquiry is actually got conducted. Ms. Akansha Dubey, learned Standing Counsel shall communicate this order to the Director, Agriculture."

¶30

5. The caution given appears to have gone unheeded by the Stamp Reporting Section.

¶31

6. Let a report be submitted by the Senior Registrar after going through the record of this petition as to how this petition has passed without noticing the aforesaid error.

¶32

7. Put up this case on 12.12.2024 as first case of the day.

¶33

8. No application for withdrawal of this writ petition will be entertained by the Registry.

¶34

9. Let Dharam Pal who has filed Vakalatnama, be produced by Ms. Anita Sahni, counsel for the petitioner on the next date. "

¶35

3. Sri Dharampal, who has signed the vakalatnama in this petition as also filed this writ petition, is present. He says that his father-Sadhu is no more. He had died about 8-9 years ago. He had contacted the counsel Ms. Anita for filing this petition and had informed her that the case would have to be filed in the name of his mother, as the father was no more, however, there was some mis-understanding on the part of the petitioner's counsel resulting in filing of this writ petition in the name of a dead person i.e. the father of Dharampal, namely, Sadhu. This fact also escaped notice of the reporting section that the vakalatnama and affidavit had not been signed by the petitioner for which an explanation has already been offered.

¶36

4. In pursuance to our earlier order dated 05.12.2024, we have received a report from the Senior Registrar mentioning therein the response of the concerned official. The stand of the reporting section is that for past few days, filing of fresh cases has increased and that due to shortage of staff in the section, the concerned has to pass approximately 60 to 80 files per day. On account of this huge rush of work, the lapse occurred as noticed in our order quoted above. The report further states that there are 262 types of defects which has to be checked on each file and directions of different Hon'ble Courts are also received from time to time. Further, the concerned has to pass all type of files i.e. civil, criminal and miscellaneous cases. This sometimes diverts the attention of the staff. Various other reasons have been mentioned. We have also gone through the written warning issued to the concerned official by the Joint Registrar (Listing).

¶37

5. We are of the opinion that the reasons given by the concerned Section should be brought to the notice of the Registrar General so that effective steps may be considered as far as possible to remedy the deficiencies pointed out by the reporting section. The Senior Registrar is directed to forward the report of Joint Registrar (Listing) to the Registrar General for considering provision of adequate staff, if required, as essentially it appears that shortage of staff is one of the major reasons for the aforesaid lapse. Having gone through the report, we accept the apology tendered by the concerned official and say no more.

¶38

6. The petition is accordingly dismissed , as it has been filed in the name of a dead person, with liberty however, to the aggrieved person to prefer a writ petition, if it is maintainable in law.

¶39

7. Ms. Anita, Advocate shall be careful in future while filing petitions.

¶40

(Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Rajan Roy,J. ) Order Date :- 12.12.2024 Shanu/Anuj Singh/-

¶41

Digitally signed by :- SHANU SUMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sadhu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadhu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sri Ram Kishor Dwivedi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./ Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Others

Kalideen vs Up Zila Adhikari (Judicial) Tehsil Rudauli Ayodhya and 10 Others

Kunwar Bahadur Kushwaha and Another vs U.O.I. Thru Addl.Secy. Coop.Societies Deptt. of Agriculture Cooperation and Farmers Welfare and Ors.

Nagma Bano Alias Nagma Khatoon and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deppt. of Chini Udyog Evam Ganna Vikas Vibhag, Lko. and 5 Others

Mahant Shri Jagdish Das Shastri Thru.the Power of Attorney Holder-Baba Kishan Das Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. and 12 Others

Ram Naresh Gupta and 9 Others Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Road Transport and Highways New Delhi and 7 Others