Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 04 To December 10, 2023

NOMINAL INDEX Smt. Sharda Singh v. Yashpal And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 469 Dr. Arvind Kumar And 3 Others v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 470 Vijay Bahadur Singh v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 471 Deepti Singh v. State Of U.P. Represented By Its Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Shiksha Lko And 6 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 472 National Highway Authority Of India vs. Parimal Bajpai And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 473 National Highways Authority Of India vs. Smt. Sudha And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 474 Sahil Mehra vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 475 M/S Maa Bhagwati Shiksha Samiti Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax And Two Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 476 Amit Agarwal v. Atul Gupta 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 477 Bharat Pumps and Compressors Limited v. Chopra Fabricators & Manufacturers Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 478 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 479 Bombay Intelligence Security (I) Ltd. v. Union Of India And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 480 M/S Nutema Helth Care Pvt.Ltd. v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 481 ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK Power To Direct Expeditious Disposal Of Cases Should Be Exercised Sparingly, In Extra Ordinary Circumstances: Allahabad HC Reiterates Case Title: Smt. Sharda Singh v. Yashpal And 2 Others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 11864 of 2023] Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 469 The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that writ should not be granted for expeditious disposal of civil suits routinely. Only when extraordinary circumstances are shown, such directions for expeditiously disposal within a fixed period should be granted. The bench comprising of Justice Ashutosh Srivastava placed reliance on earlier decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Ali Shad Usmani vs. Ali Isteba and Km. Shobha Bose V. Judge Small Causes & Ors wherein it was held that “the power to direct expeditious disposal of Suit or any other Cases should be exercised sparingly in extra ordinary circumstances and not in a routine manner.” Doctrine Of Finality Of Adjudication Of A Case Overpowers Accuracy/ Correctness Of A Judgment: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Dr. Arvind Kumar And 3 Others v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 512 of 2023] Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 470 While refusing to quash an 11-year-old judgement in review, the Allahabad High Court held that a judgment which has attained finality cannot be treated lightly by the Courts. The Court observed that the doctrine of finality of adjudication of a case often overpowers the accuracy or correctness of a judgment. The bench comprising of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad held “Almost eleven years have passed since the impugned order came to be pronounced more than a decade ago. Finality attached to the judgements and orders passed by a Court is not a matter to be triffled with. It is not an assumption available under the Constitution that all judgements of the Courts would be correct on all counts. Yet, for functionality to exist and order to prevail, the doctrine of finality of adjudication often eclipses or over powers concerns or considerations that otherwise exist in favour of accuracy or correctness of judgements.” Transfer Is An Administrative Decision, Courts Should Interfere With Such Orders Only In Very Rare Cases: Allahabad HC Reiterates Case Title: Vijay Bahadur Singh v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [WRIT - A No. - 18992 of 2023] Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 471 Relying on various decisions of the Supreme Court, the Allahabad High Court has held that the Court cannot interfere in transfer orders as they are administrative in nature and are inherent conditions of appointment. While declining to interfere in the transfer order of the petitioner, a bench of Justice Kshitij Shailendra held “It is well settled position of law that transfer of an officer/employee is inherent in terms of the appointment and in absence of its provision in the relevant Service Rule, it is implicit as an essential condition of service subject to contrary provision in the rule. Fundamental Rule 15 provides that "the President may transfer a government servant from one post to another." Mere Adoption Of Govt Service Rules By Autonomous Bodies Doesn't Grant Their Staff Same Benefits As Govt Employees: Allahabad HC Case Title: Deepti Singh v. State Of U.P. Represented By Its Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Shiksha Lko And 6 Others [WRIT - A No. - 6662 of 2023] Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 472 The Allahabad High Court has held that the mere adoption of government service rules by autonomous bodies does not confer the same rights on the employees of the autonomous body as those available to the government employees. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra and anr Vs. Bhagwan and Ors, Justice ...

Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 04 To December 10, 2023

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags