20 February 2009
Supreme Court
Download

ISTAK MOHD. Vs STATE OF U.P. .

Case number: C.A. No.-001140-001141 / 2009
Diary number: 35283 / 2007
Advocates: RAMESHWAR PRASAD GOYAL Vs SHRISH KUMAR MISRA


1

   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

             CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1140-1141 OF  2009  

              [Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.4282-4283 of 2008]     ISTAK MOHD.                                                                                     

...   Appellant(s)

                       Versus    

STATE OF U.P. & ORS.     ...  Respondent(s)   

O R D E R  

Leave granted.

These appeals are directed against the order passed by the Division Bench of  

the Allahabad High Court on 21st September, 2007 in Writ Petition 1330/SS/2007.  

Since there were contradicting views of two Single Judges of the said High Court, the  

matter was referred by the learned Single Judge hearing the matter to the larger  

Bench to answer the following question:-

“Whether the government order dated  24.4.2006  is   a  clarificatory  order  and  amount  to  issue  in  continuance  of  earlier  order  dated  10.10.2005  as  held  by    this  court,  in  the  case  of  Shravan Kumar Yadav (supra) and Gyan Prakash  (supra) copies of which have been filed colectively as  Annexure-5  to  the  writ  petition  or  it  is  an  independent  order  and  has  not  prospective  application as held by other Hon'ble Single Judge of  this court in the case of Sharad Kumar Srivastava  (supra)?   The  Photostat  copy  of  order  dated  24.8.2005  supplied  by  Shri  S.N.  Mishra  learned

2

counsel for the respondents is taken on record.“ The matter was taken up by the larger Bench, which while answering the  

reference, also dismissed the writ application. The  procedure  adopted  by  the  Referral  Court  is   irregular  since  it  was  

required only to answer the question and send back the matter to the Writ Court for  

disposal.  In that view of the matter, we modify the impugned order of the larger  

Bench to the extent of setting aside the dismissal of the writ petition and direct that  

the matter be remitted back to the learned Single  Judge with the opinion of  the  

larger Bench for final disposal.

The appeals are disposed of, accordingly.

               ...................J.

                              (ALTAMAS KABIR)   

                 ...................J.                         (CYRIAC JOSEPH)  

New Delhi, February 20, 2009.