High Courts Weekly Roundup [Nov 2 – Nov 8]

Allahabad High Court 1. Hathras case: Allahabad High Court Expresses Concern Over No Action Against District Magistrate Pravin Kumar [Suo-Moto In re: Right To Decent & Dignified Last Rites/Cremation] A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Rajan Roy reserved its order in the Hathras case, while expressing concern over the Uttar Pradesh government not taking any action against District Magistrate Pravin Kumar for fairness of the probe. The state government, however, assured the court of a decision in this regard by November 25, the next date of hearing in the case. The bench also directed the CBI, which is probing the case, to lay before it the status of investigation in the matter on the next date of hearing. Also Read: [Hathras] Allahabad HC Calls For Status Report From CBI, Asks State About Possibility Of Transferring DM Elsewhere 2. Allahabad High Court Extends Protection To Same Sex Couple, Acknowledges The Stark Reality of Discrimination Faced By The Community In The Society [Sultana Mirza & Anr. v. State of UP & Ors.] The High Court granted protection from harassment to a homosexual couple from Uttar Pradesh, while citing the Supreme Court's landmark verdict in Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1. "The petition highlights the stark reality of the society where the citizens are facing discrimination at the hands of the society only on account of their sexual orientation despite it being well settled that sexual orientation is innate to human being," the Bench of Justices Shashi Kant Gupta and Pankaj Bhatia said. 3. Post Made Against Amit Shah Prior To Joining Service: Allahabad HC Deprecates Post's Reference In Inquiry Order & Annuls Officer's Transfer [Manoj Kumar Verma v. State of UP & Anr.] The Bench of Justice Sangeeta Chandra quashed an order of transfer of a Government Officer against whom an inquiry was instituted in which there was a reference of the Facebook page post (related to Mr. Amit Shah, the then Adhyaksh, Bhartiya Janta Party) which the officer made on 15.07.2015 much before the joining as Designated Officer on 15.09.2015. 4. Unfortunate That Clients Suffer When Bar Members Abstain From Judicial Work Creating Backlog Of Cases: Allahabad High Court [Ameerun Nisa v. Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal] "It is unfortunate that clients are suffering for cases which can easily be disposed of but for the reasons that the Members of Bar have been abstaining from judicial work creating a backlog of cases", the Bench of Justice Jaspreet Singh said while hearing the plea of an 80-year-old lady, whose case under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code was pending for over a year. It directed the concerned Court to finally decide the matter within a period of four months. 5. Allahabad High Court Seeks UP Govt's Response On State Law Commission's Report For Repealing Anti-Beggary Law [Ashma Izzat v. State of UP & Ors.] While hearing a petition challenging the Constitutional validity of certain provisions of the UP Prohibition of Beggary Act, 1975, the Bench comprising of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Saurabh Lavania asked the State counsel to seek instructions with respect to the recommendation by the VII State Law Commission for repealing the said Act. In November 2017, the Seventh State Law Commission of UP, headed by Justice AN Mittal, had submitted a report, proposing to repeal 1166 "dead enactments" in the State of UP. The Commission had also submitted a Draft Bill titled UP Repealing & Amending Bill, 2018, in this regard. 6. Allahabad High Court Pulls Up A Judicial Magistrate For Advising The Party 'To Do Or What Not To Do' [Mukesh v. State of UP & Anr.] The Bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi pulled up a Judicial Magistrate for passing a "strange order" whereby he "advised the client (of the Counsel present before the Court) to do or what not to do". It remarked, "This Court records its strongest exception and impertinence to such type of orders shown by the learned Magistrate and accepts that he would not pass such type of orders in future." 7. Contravention Of Obligations Cast Upon Promoters Under RERA Act: Authority Fully Empowered To Award Interest U/S 38(1), Holds Allahabad HC [Paramount Prop Build Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP & Ors.] A Division Bench of Justices Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava held that in case of contravention of any obligation cast upon the promoters under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the Authority while exercising jurisdiction under Section 38(1), is fully empowered to award interest on the amount paid by allottees. The Court on the other hand observed that a combined reading of Section 18 and 38 of the RERA Act empower the authority to impose interest in case of contravention. Other orders by Allahabad HC: Provisions Of The Gangsters Act Are Being Misused Thoroughly In...

High Courts Weekly Roundup [Nov 2 – Nov 8]

Akshita Saxena

Tags