Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 7 to August 13, 2023

NOMINAL INDEX Social Forum on Human Rights vs. State of U.P. & Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 247 Amit Kumar vs. State of UP & 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 248 State of U.P. vs. Har Dayal Singh And Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 249 M/S Bansal Construction Office v. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 250 Jitendra Singh Visen and Others vs. State of UP and Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 251 Mahendra Pal vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Lko. And 5 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 252 Reena Bagga and Another vs. State of UP and 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 253 Ajay Yadav vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 254 ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK Allahabad High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Alleging Illegal Arrests, Action For Breach Of Peace Against Social Workers Case Title: Social Forum on Human Rights vs. State of U.P. & Another [PIL No. 1308/2023] Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 247 The Allahabad High Court refused to entertain a PIL moved by NGO Social Forum on Human Rights, challenging alleged misuse of powers under the ‘Police Commissionerate System’ by the Uttar Pradesh police against social workers. A bench comprising Justices Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi orally advised the Petitioner that persons facing actions under Sections 107, 116 and 151 of CrPC have alternate remedies available to them and a PIL to this effect would not be maintainable. Following this, the plea was withdrawn. Transfer Order Allegedly In Violation Of State Policy Cannot Be Challenged In Writ Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Amit Kumar vs. State of UP & 2 Others [Writ A No. 11797/2023] Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 248 The Allahabad High Court has held that a transfer order alleged to be passed in violation of State policy cannot be challenged in writ jurisdiction since no statutory right is affected. State policies are administrative in nature and are distinguishable from statutory laws made by the legislature, it held. “Transfer is indeed an exigency of service and interference by this Court in exercise of our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is permissible only in the event that the transfer is actuated by malafides in fact or is vitiated by malafides in law. Still, there is one more avenue, where this Court can interfere with a transfer order, and, that is where the transfer order is in breach of a statutory rule. However, in no event a transfer order can be interfered with on the ground of infraction of the State's transfer policy,” held Justice JJ Munir. 'Trial Court Took A Reasonable View': Allahabad High Court Upholds Acquittal Of Three In 40 Year Old Murder Case Case title - State of U.P. vs. Har Dayal Singh And Others [GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 1873 of 1984] Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 249 While dealing with an appeal of the State Government, the Allahabad High Court upheld the acquittal of three accused persons under Section 302 of IPC on the ground that the trial court took a reasonable view in the case, which dates back to the year 1983. Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in the cases of Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka (2007) and Dhanapal and Others vs. State (2009) concerning the principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with the appeal against an order of acquittal, the bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Nand Prabha Shukla upheld the order of the acquittal passed by the Session Judge, Sahajahpur in the year 1984. Ineligibility Of Arbitrator As Per S.12(5) Arbitration Act Can't Make Arbitration Clause Itself Invalid: Allahabad High Court: Case Title: M/S Bansal Construction Office v. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 250 [Arbitration And Conciliation APPL.U/S11(4) No. - 142 of 2019] Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 250 The Allahabad High Court has held that the entire arbitration agreement will not cease to exist merely because the procedure of appointment of the arbitrator, as stated in the agreement, is barred by Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. “Section 12(5) of the Act read with 7th Schedule has been introduced so as to lend greater legitimacy to the process of arbitration by providing for an independent person to act as arbitrator and exclude the other party from becoming a judge in their own cause,” observed Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra. Allahabad High Court Dismisses As Withdrawn PIL Seeking Sealing Of Gyanvapi Mosque Premises, Ban On Entry Of Non-Hindus Case title - Jitendra Singh Visen and Others vs. State of UP and Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 251 [PIL- 1776/2023] Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 251 The Allahabad High Court allowed the withdrawal of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking a direction to the...

Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 7 to August 13, 2023

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags