The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to Vinod Bihari Lal, director of Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology And Sciences.

A Single Bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Vinod Bihari Lal.

The bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case under Sections 307/ 323/ 506/ 325/ 467/ 471/ 120-B IPC, Police Station – Naini, District – Prayagraj.

Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime.

He further submitted that the applicant was not named in the FIR. The FIR was lodged with an inordinate delay without there being any plausible explanation for the same.

He also submitted that the applicant was working as Director, Administration of the Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology & Sciences and the first informant was an ex-student of the said University, who has not completed his degree course and pressurizing the Administration to issue degree without clearing the examination, to which the University administration refused, due to which the first informant bears personal grudge with the applicant.

Counsel for the applicant said that the applicant is nowhere connected with the case. Since the place of occurrence is mentioned as the end of Yamuna Bridge, the repairing work was going on and the eyewitness, i.e, the security guard, was present, who specifically denied the occurrence of the incident as alleged in the FIR and the statement of the first informant. The security guard has specifically mentioned that due to an accident, the first informant on a scooter, had fallen down.

He further said that in the CCTV recording as investigated by the Investigating Officer, the first informant in his FIR has stated that he was being followed by two bikers, but no such video footage was available.

He also submitted that the Compounder of Global Health Care Hospital stated in his statement that the injured informant has walked upto the dispensary/place of Doctor and his injuries were simple in nature.

He further submitted that one of the independent witnesses, who is having shop near the bridge, also denied the incident as alleged in the FIR. He further submitted that on the subsequent statement of the informant, section 325 IPC was added and section 308 IPC was deleted.

AAG submitted that the injuries are grievous in nature, which are evident from the statement of the Doctor. The injuries and the statements of the eyewitnesses corroborate the prosecution story as well as the version of the FIR. The applicant was brought to the hospital in serious condition.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the records and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail, the Court observed.

The Court ordered that,

Let applicant, namely, Vinod Bihari Lal, be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime Number on furnishing personal bond and two heavy sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

(i) The applicant will surrender his passport, if any, and not leave the country without permission of the trial court concerned. In case, he has no passport or in case he has already surrendered his passport, he will file an affidavit to that effect before the trial court prior to release him on bail.

(ii) The applicant will deposit Rs 10 lacs before the trial court prior to release him on bail and the same shall be kept in an interest bearing account of some nationalized bank and shall be forfeited in case of violation of any of the conditions imposed by this order.

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that the applicant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

(iv) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. In case of absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against the applicant under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(v) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure the applicant’s presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against the applicant, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 CrPC. If, in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against the applicant in accordance with law.

vii) The applicant shall appear in person before the court concerned on any date in the 1st week of every month.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the bail of the applicant shall be deemed to be cancelled without any further reference of this Court and the court concerned shall release the amount of Rs 10 lacs deposited by the applicant in favour of the State, forthwith.

The Allahabad High Court has given relief to the person who cheated people in the name of getting a job. The Court has ordered to release him on bail.

A Single Bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Ravi.

The bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station- Narsena , District – Bulandshahar.

Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime.

It is submitted that on refusal of illegal demand of Gajendra Kumar by the brother of the applicant, he in collusion with the informant lodged the FIR in order to create pressure upon the brother of the applicant for withdrawing the case lodged by him. There was inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, which had not been explained; there was no independent public witness to prove the alleged transaction of money; on perusal of the FIR itself, it shows that no money has been transferred in the account of the applicant and he was not the beneficiary of the alleged money. The applicant is old person suffering from chronic diseases and he has no previous criminal history.

It is also submitted that there is no apprehension that after being released on bail, applicant may flee from the course of law or may, otherwise, misuse the liberty of bail and the applicant is in jail since 18.1.2024 and the possibility of conclusion of trial in near future is very bleak.

A.G.A has, however, opposed the prayer for grant of bail.

 “Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail”, the Court observed.

The Court ordered that,

Let applicant namely Ravi be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime Number on his/her furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that applicant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his/her counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against applicant under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iii) In case, the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure presence of the applicant, proclamation under Section 82 CrPC is issued and the applicant fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against the applicant, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 CrPC. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against the applicant in accordance with law.

Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.

The Allahabad High Court has allowed the conditional bail of Meerut businessman Qamar Ahmed Kazmi, accused of GST evasion worth crores of rupees.

A Single Bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Qamar Ahmed Kazmi.

The bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC, Police Station – Civil Lines, District – Meerut with the prayer to release him on bail during pendency of trial.

The prosecution story as set up in the FIR filed by the Incharge Inspector, Special Task Force (S.T.F) is that the applicant has availed the input tax credit of more than Rs 4,28,37,362/- for the period of 2017-18 to 2022-23 without actual movement of goods on the basis of forged and fictitious documents of supplies were procured from various non-existing firms i.e Santosh Enterprises, Sandip Metal, Honey Metal and Rajpal & sons.

Further after implementation of the e-way bill system on the portal from the year 2018-19 till the month of May, 2023, e-way bills worth Rs 17,33,83,966 have been cancelled by the applicant’s firm without any valid reasons or reasonable explanation.

It has been further averred that on verification of all those selling firms, either the firms were found non-existing or have not done any business.

It has been further averred that the details of the trucks which were used for transportation of goods, have not been found in toll plazas situated on the alleged route of transportation. 

The Court found that there is no dispute that prima facie, the applicant is involved in availing excess input tax credit as well as cancellation of e-way bill of the huge value by the proprietorship of his firm without any reasonable reason. The department has already issued notice under Section 70 and 74 of the GST Act against the firm of the applicant.

The Court observed that,

Further the record reveals that till date no adjudication order has been passed by the competent authority quantifying the excess availing the input tax credit. The record further reveals that neither any order has been passed by the competent authority cancelling the registration of the selling dealer in question nor the registration of the applicant’s firm has been cancelled.

Section 69 read with section 132 of the Act provides for punishment of wrongful availment of input tax credit with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and fine. It further provides that every second or thereof all the offense committed by the registered person shall be punishable. Further Section 138 of GST Act provides the compounding of all the offense committed by the registered person being caused after payment of tax and interest to the amount of such wrong availment of input tax credit.

Taking into consideration the provisions of law and the fact that the Commissioner is empowered to recover the due amount and propose for abating the proceedings and as the trial will take its own time to conclude, the Court finds this to be a fit case where discretion could be exercised in favour of the applicant.

The Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs C.B.I (2012) 1 SCC 40 has held that seriousness of the offenses alone is not conclusive of the applicant’s entitlement to bail.

“Keeping in view the nature of the offence, argument advanced on behalf of the parties, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs State of U.P and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and recent judgement dated 11.7.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs C.B.I and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail”, the Court further observed while allowing the bail application.

The Court ordered that,

Let the applicant namely Qamar Ahmed Kazmi be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions and further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified:-

(i) The applicant will surrender his passport, if any, and not leave the country without permission of the trial court concerned. In case he has no passport he will file an affidavit to this effect before the trial court prior to release him on bail.

(ii) The applicant will deposit Rs 25 lacs before the trial court prior to release him on bail and the same shall be kept in an interest bearing account of some nationalized bank and shall be forfeited in case of violation of any of conditions imposed by this order.

(iii) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

(iv) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

(v) That the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(vi) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.

(vii) The applicant shall personally appear before the trial court fortnightly in every calendar month.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the bail of the applicant shall be deemed to be cancelled without any further reference of the Court and State shall forfeit of the amount of Rs 25 lacs deposited by the applicant.

The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of rupees two lakhs on the college for admitting 60 students in additional sections without completing the formalities.

 A Single Bench of the Justice Piyush Agrawal passed this order while hearing a petition filed by C/M Smt Vimala Devi Mahavidyalay Bhamai.On perusal of the instruction dated 16.12.2023, the Court noted that the respondent no 2, i.e, Registrar of the University, has not whispered a word about the query made by the Court order dated 15.12.2023.Counsel for the respondent no 2 submitted that an information/oral instruction has been received from the respondent no 2 on her mobile phone that due to oversight of the concerned Clerk and technical glitch, out of 60 students of additional section, only 20 students were permitted to submit their fees and other formalities.

On the pointed query to the counsel for the respondent that once 20 students of the same section have been permitted, then why the remaining 40 students would suffer on account of action or inaction on the part of the respondents, counsel for the respondent could not reply the same, the Court further noted.Since every semester/examination is important for the future career of students, they should not be made to suffer merely on account of the fault of the respondent or the College as indicated in the last instructions dated 16.12.2023, the Court said.

In view of the above, the Court directed respondent no 2 to permit the remaining 40 students of the additional section to participate in the examination forthwith and in case the date of examination is expired, they shall permit the 40 students to appear in the supplementary examination.”Since the last instruction of the respondent no 2 shows that some formalities have not been completed by the petitioner – Institution before taking admission of 60 students in the additional section, the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs 2 lacs with the Registrar General of the Court on or before 19.12.2023.

Further, an affidavit of deposit of Rs 2 lacs, along with receipt, shall be filed by the petitioner by 20.12.2023 and copy of the order, along with deposit, shall also be submitted before the District Magistrate, Prayagraj”, the Court observed.In the event of failure to comply with the directions made herein-above, the District Magistrate, Prayagraj shall forthwith recover the amount of Rs 2 lacs from the petitioner, along with incidental charges within next three days, i.e, upto 23.12.2023, and deposit the same with the Registrar General of the Court.

The petitioner shall not be permitted to withdraw the writ petition.The Court has fixed the next hearing of the petition on January 23, 2024.

The Allahabad High while allowing the petition filed challenging the order dated 23.02.2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner, State Tax, Mathura as well as the order dated 16.05.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Mobile Squad, Mathura under section 129(3) of the UP GST Act, has held that intention to evade tax cannot be attributed on movement of assesse’s goods from one unit to another.

A Single Bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal passed this order while hearing a petition filed by M/S Vacmet India Ltd.

The facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and deals in production of polyester films, BOPP films, specialty coated films and metallized paper, etc in India.

On 14.05.2018, while the goods were transported from manufacturing unit of the petitioner at Agra to its unit at Kosi Kalan, Mathura, the vehicle was intercepted and detention order in Form GST MOV 06 under section 129(1) UP GST Act was passed on the ground that part – B of the e-way bill was not filled up.

Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued on the same day, i.e, 14.05.2018, proposing to impose tax amounting to Rs 1,82,000/- on the estimated value of Rs 6,50,000/-, together with penalty of Rs 1,82,000/-.

The petitioner submitted its reply stating that non-filling up of Part B of e-way bill was a mistake on the part of the transporter and as soon as the petitioner realized the mistake, e-way bill was updated and the Part B was filled up.

Thereafter, on 16.05.2018, the respondent no. 2 passed the penalty order under section 129(3) of the UP GST Act. Against the penalty order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent no 1, which also dismissed vide impugned order dated 23.02.2019 affirming the penalty order dated 16.05.2018.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, being a registered dealer, is adhering to the provisions of GST in letter and spirit. In the normal course of business, the petitioner made a stock transfer from its Agra unit to its Kosi Kala unit at Mathura, which was accompanying with all proper documents, such as, stock transfer of challan, e-way bill, transporter bilty and no discrepancy was found in the said documents, except Part ‘B’ of e-way bill, which was required to be filled up by the transporter was not filled, but as soon as the said discrepancy came to the notice of the petitioner, the same was updated and filled up immediately and produced before the authority concerned, along with its reply.

He further submitted that specific ground was raised before the authorities concerned that there was no intention to evade payment of tax as the goods in question were going from the petitioner’s one unit to another unit at Mathura as stock transfer and since there was no element of tax evasion involved in the present case, the proceedings ought to have been dropped by the authorities below.

Per contra, ACSC supports the impugned orders and submitted that at the time of interception of the goods in question, genuine documents were not produced as required under rule 138 of the GST Rules as the e-way bill, part ‘B’ was not filled up and therefore, the proceedings have rightly been initiated against the petitioner. He further submits that in the event the goods were not detained, the petitioner ought to have succeeded in not disclosing the goods in its books of account. He prays for dismissal of the petition.

The Court observed that,

Admitted, the goods in question were going to petitioner’s one unit to another, i.e, from Agra to Mathura, as stock transfer. The said goods were accompanied with stock transfer challan, in which no discrepancy, whatsoever, was pointed out. Further, the consignment note/bilty was also accompanying the goods, in which also no discrepancy was pointed out. E-way bill was also accompanying the goods, in which part ‘A’ was duly filled, but part ‘B’ was not filled up, on the basis of which, the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner.

At the time of interception of the goods, when it came to the notice of the petitioner, the same was duly filled up and produced before the authorities along with the reply, but not being satisfied with the reply, the impugned penalty order was passed against the petitioner, which was confirmed by the appellate authority in appeal.

In the appeal, a specific point was raised that the goods in question are raw material, which were going from one unit to another unit as stock transfer and there was no intention of the petitioner to evade any tax as there was no liability for payment of tax for stock transfer being made from one unit to another, but still, by the impugned order, the penalty order has been confirmed.

“The record further reveals that in pursuance of the show cause notice, the petitioner filed reply along with duly filled up Part ‘B’ of e-way bill. Once it was brought to the notice of the authorities that the discrepancy, which was pointed out, was rectified before passing of the seizure order, the authority ought to have taken a lenient view in the facts & circumstances of the present case.

ACSC could not point out any provision under the GST Act, which could show that while stock transfers are made within the State of Uttar Pradesh from one unit to another, i.e., Agra to Mathura, the tax is to be charged as the goods in question, which were raw material and not a finished goods.

The specific point was raised before the authority also, but the authority failed to consider the same. Since the respondents have utterly failed to show any intention to evade payment of tax in the case, the impugned order cannot be justified.

Since the goods in question were stock transfer from one Unit to another within the State of Uttar Pradesh (Agra to Mathura) and in absence of any provision being pointed out by the ACSC or any authority below that the goods (stock transfer) in transit were liable for payment of tax, no evasion of tax could be attributed to the goods in question. Once there was no intention to evade payment of tax, the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner are vitiated and are liable to be set aside”, the Court further observed while allowing the petition.

In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case, the Court quashed the order dated 23.02.2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner, State Tax, Mathura as well as the order dated 16.05.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Mobile Squad, Mathura.

The Allahabad High Court while dismissing the petition said that “once the finding of fact, which has been recorded against the assessee has not been assailed in the petition, the petitioner cannot be permitted to argue the case beyond the pleadings”.

A Single Bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal passed this order while hearing a petition filed by M/S Millennium Impex Pvt Ltd.

By means of the petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 31.8.2020 passed by respondent no 1 in Appeal A.Y 2019-20 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner.

The facts of the case are that the petitioner is a registered company incorporated under the Companies Act, as well as duly certified by ISO 9001:2015.

The petitioner is a verified seller of supreme quality of metal seated zero leakage Ball Valves and purchaser of Ball Valve, Diaphragm Valves in bulk. In the normal course of business, the petitioner has made outward supply of Rotor Assembly Elmo and Complete Assy-CL 3001 to NTPC Ltd, Ramagundam Super Thermal Power Station, P.O Jyotinagar, Distt Pedapalli, Telangana vide Tax Invoice dated 14.8.2019 and the said goods were being transported from New Delhi to Telangana via Agra, U.P , where the same was intercepted by respondent no 2 at Saiyan, Agra, U.P on 16.8.2019 and after physical verification of the goods, it was found that part B of the e-way bill accompanying with the goods, was not filled on which notice was issued proposing to impose tax @ 18 % i.e Rs 14,63,063/- along with equal amount of penalty.

Thereafter on deposit of impugned tax along with penalty, the goods in question were released and respondent no 2 vide order dated 21.8.2019 passed the penalty order in Form GST MOV 09 under Section 20 of IGST read with Section 129 (3) of CGST Act observing that part B of e-way bill was not filled, hence the seizure of the goods was valid.

Feeling aggrieved to the said order, the petitioner has filed an appeal which was dismissed by respondent no 1 by order dated 31.8.2020.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that goods in question were sold by one registered dealer to another registered dealer and the same was accompanied with genuine tax invoices, GR, e-way bill; the authorities ought not to have seized the goods on technical glitch.

He further submitted that merely because part B of e-way bill was not filled, which was required to be filled by the transporter, the proceedings had wrongly been initiated against the petitioner.

It was further argued that there was no intention to evade the payment of tax; once the authorities have not recorded any finding of fact in respect of any intention to evade the payment of tax, the impugned order is not justified in the eyes of law and same is liable to the quashed.

Per contra, Rishi Kumar, A.C.S.C has supported the impugned order and submitted that it is admitted fact that at the time of interception of goods, the documents which were produced by the petitioner, after verification of the same, it was found that part -B of e- way bill was not filled and the same is in contravention of the provisions of the Act, therefore, proceeding has rightly been initiated.

It was further argued that after detention of the goods a show cause notice was issued to which no reply was submitted by the petitioner to explain the fact that under what circumstances, part -B of the eway bill was not filled. The amount was deposited and goods were released on the next date, which shows that there was contravention of the provisions as contemplated under the Act.

The Court noted that,

Admittedly, the goods were intercepted during transportation from New Delhi to Telangana at Agra, U.P and after verification of the documents produced, it was found that part- B of the e- way bill was left blank thereafter a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner but the petitioner has not submitted any explanation for the same. But on deposit of tax along with penalty, the goods were released on 27.8.2019.

The petitioner has not submitted any explanation up to the stage of this Court that under what circumstances, part B of the e-way bill was not filled. The demand raised against the petitioner was challenged in the appeal but the same has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 31.8.2020. The petitioner has not assigned any reason, whatsoever, for not complying with the provisions under Rule 138.

An argument has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner that there was no intention to avoid the payment of tax or any finding has been recorded by the authorities below in this respect.

The Court observed that,

He has relied upon para 3 and 5 of the grounds of appeal filed before the first appellate authority.

On perusal of the impugned order, it shows that the petitioner pressed only two grounds taken in the appeal. Further not a single word has been whispered in the writ petition about the said argument, as such the petitioner’s counsel cannot be permitted to argue the case without any pleading in the writ petition.

On perusal of the judgements of the Apex Court as well as this Court, it has been held that the petitioner cannot be permitted to argue the case without there being any pleading in support of his arguments.

No rebuttal / rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner controverting the said assertions made in the counter affidavit and on the other hand on 16.10.2023, a statement was made on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner did not propose to file any rejoinder affidavit.

“Once the finding of fact, which has been recorded against the assessee has not been assailed in the petition, the petitioner cannot be permitted to argue the case beyond the pleadings. In view of the aforesaid facts, the case law as well as circular relied upon by the petitioner are of no help to him.

In view of the facts as stated above, no interference is called for by the Court in the impugned order”, the Court further observed while dismissing the petition.

The Allahabad High Court has directed the Civil Judge Senior Division of Mathura to complete hearing within four months on the application for conducting an archaeological survey of Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi and Shahi Idgah at Mathura.

A single-judge bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Bhagwan Shri Krishna Virajman and another.

The petitioner before the Court is seeking a direction to the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mathura to decide the application dated 13.5.2022 i.e paper no 35 Ga and 37 Ga u/s 26 CPC pending in Original Suit (Shri Krishna Virajman and others Vs UP Sunni Central Waqf Board and others) within stipulated period of time.

It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that since the application is pending consideration, the petitioners are suffering irreparable loss.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue, the Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the concerned court below to consider and decide application dated 13.5.2022 i.e paper no 35 Ga and 37 Ga u/s 26 CPC pending in aforesaid case in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, but certainly after giving opportunity to the parties concerned and without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, if there is no legal impediment.

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed the appeal filed in the cancellation of recruitment examinations of Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission (UPSSSC).

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Piyush Agrawal passed this order, while hearing a Special Appeal Defective filed by Vikash Tiwari and others.

Before the Single Judge, the appellants had impugned the order dated March 24, 2021 passed by the UPSSSC, regarding recruitment for the posts of Gram Panchayat Adhikari, Gram Vikas Adhikari (Samaj Kalyan) and Samaj Kalyan Supervisor was cancelled.

The arguments raised by Ashok Khare, Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellants, is that from the facts of the case it is evident that the tainted candidates could easily be segregated from the candidates against whom there are no allegations, hence, in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sachin Kumar and others vs Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board and others, (2021) 4 SCC 631, the entire result should not have been cancelled.

Further argument is that the decision of the Commission is based on enquiry report, the copy whereof was not even supplied to the writ petitioners. No final report has been submitted as yet. The findings in the preliminary enquiry report are merely, prima facie, hence, no decision should have been taken thereon.

It was further argued that there are three sets of OMR sheets, one is given to the evaluator namely, the Agency engaged i.e. Tata Consultancy Services and one set is kept in the Government Treasury. The same can be evaluated and made the basis for declaration of the result.

On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submitted that it is a case in which the Commission had engaged the services of the Tata Consultancy Services for conducting the exam. However, on enquiry it was found that its role was clearly doubtful. Certain OMR sheets were initially submitted blank, as is evident from the copy thereof lying in the Government Treasury.

However, when it was compared with the OMR sheets with the Agency, the questions were found to be answered. In the first result declared on August 28, 2019, 1952 candidates were shortlisted, out of which candidature of 136 candidates was cancelled on account of discrepancies found in the OMR sheets and against them FIR was lodged. Second result was declared on February 29, 2020 of 1553 candidates, out of which candidature of 393 candidates was withheld as tampering with the OMR sheets was found in their cases.

There were a total 11 lakhs candidates, out of which about 9 lakhs candidates appeared in the exam. Once in the same set of candidates, whose result was declared, tampering was found in the OMR sheets of a substantial percentage of those candidates, the entire process was vitiated as it is the question of credibility of the system.

The contention raised by counsel for the appellants that a copy of the interim report was not supplied to them for raising the argument, is totally misconceived. Record was produced before the Single Bench and the Court was satisfied after a perusal thereof about the decision taken by the Commission. Same was even given to the counsel for the appellants for perusal in the Court. Copy thereof could not be supplied to the appellants as the matter was under investigation.

After hearing counsel for the parties and going through the record, the Court opined that there is no scope for interference in the judgment of the Single Judge, which has considered all the arguments raised by the parties.

The Court observed, “It is a case in which a private Agency of repute, namely Tata Consultancy Services, was engaged for conducting the exam. About nine lakh candidates appeared. However in the interim report, it was found that in the case of a large number of candidates, whose result was declared as shortlisted, there were discrepancies in the OMR sheets.

“It could be noticed in comparison of one set of OMR sheets kept in the Government Treasury with the OMR sheets with the Agency. Some of the OMR sheets in the Government Treasury were found to be blank, whereas with the Agency the same were found to be evaluated. They were successful candidates. FIR was registered against 136 candidates. Those candidates were debarred from appearing in any exam for the next two years.

“The percentage of discrepancy is evident from the fact that in the first result dated August 28, 2019 out of 1952 candidates, OMR sheets of 136 candidates were found to be tampered with. Second result was declared on February 29, 2020, and out of 1553 candidates, tampering with the OMR sheets was found in the case of 393 candidates. The exercise of preparation of results cannot be undertaken, time and again.

“The conduct of the Agency was found suspicious from the very beginning. It is not a case where tainted and untainted candidates could easily be segregated, as the number of candidates who appeared in the written exam is about nine lakh,” he added.

The Court said that as far as contention raised by the Counsel for the appellants regarding the report being interim is concerned, suffice is to add that even till that stage it was found as a fact on comparison of OMR sheets that there were discrepancies therein. Copies of some OMR sheets kept with the Government Treasury were found to be blank, whereas the Agency had the same evaluation.

They were the successful candidates. Discrepancies found in the marks of a large number of candidates in the two sets of answer sheets was more than 10%. The investigation is not only related to the result, but also to fix responsibility of the Agency, as stated by counsel for the respondents, so that the same may be blacklisted for future.

The Court held that it cannot be ruled out that there were some unfair means used even at the stage of conducting the exam. That is the reason that some of the candidates had left their OMR sheets blank. The modus operandi is evident from the fact that a number of discrepancies were found in two sets of OMR sheets.

There was no question of supply of copies of the interim report to the appellants, as the matter was still being investigated. Further the fact remains and as has been noticed by the Single Judge, the interim report was produced in Court and was perused before the final judgment was delivered.

Not only this, even the Counsel for the writ petitioners/appellants were handed over the copies thereof in the Court for perusal and the arguments addressed by them with reference thereto were considered.

Besides this, the public must have confidence in the process of recruitment by the Public Service Commission or the Selection Boards. It is a case wherein the manner in which the examination has been conducted and the result has been prepared, does not inspire confidence at all. It is not the question of segregation of tainted candidates from untainted ones.

In two results declared, a large number of discrepancies were found. The candidates will lose their confidence, in case it is allowed to continue in the same manner.

The process may entail hardships to few candidates but to maintain sanctity of the selection process and public confidence, cancellation of the entire process, in the case in hand, was the right decision taken by the Commission.

In facts of the case, the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sachin Kumar’s case (supra) may not be applicable, the Court said.

“For the reasons mentioned above, while concurring with the view expressed by the Single Judge, we do not find that any case is made out for interference in the appeal as credibility of the entire selection process is to be maintained, so that all the applicants and the candidates have faith in the system”, the Court observed, while dismissing the Special Appeal.

The Allahabad High Court has observed that with the joining of a candidate in the select list, the process of selection is complete then the waiting list cannot be acted upon.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Piyush Agrawal passed this order, while hearing a petition filed by Mashkoor Hasan.

The intra-court appeal challenged an interim order passed by a Single-Judge Bench on August 11, 2021, in a writ petition filed by respondents.

Arvind Kumar Pandey, Counsel appearing for a private respondent, raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the appeal against the interim order passed by the Single Judge.

Radha Kant Ojha, Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that an advertisement was issued for selection and appointment to the post of Principal in various institutions, including Rani Avanti Bai Inter College, Marhara, District Etah in 2002.

The select list was notified on September 29, 2003. So far as the select list of the College is concerned, Dinesh Vashishth was at Serial No 1 whereas Sudhir Kumar Gupta was at Serial No 2 and the appellant was at Serial No 3 in the merit list.

A writ petition was filed by Sudhir Kumar Gupta, the candidate at Serial No 2 in the merit list, with reference to the said selection and appointment.

In the said writ petition, order dated September 3, 2008, operation of the orders impugned therein dated July 31, 2008 and August 12, 2008, was stayed.

The said order was challenged by Dr Dinesh Vashishth by filing a Special Appeal, which was allowed on September 25, 2008. While setting aside the order dated September 3, 2008 passed by Single Judge, a request was made to the Single Judge for deciding the writ petition expeditiously. The writ petition is stated to be still pending.

The Senior Counsel further submitted that Dr Dinesh Vashishth, who was at Serial No 1 in the merit list has since retired after attaining the age of superannuation, he is no more a candidate. The candidate at Serial No 2 in the merit list namely, Sudhir Kumar Gupta has also left service and hence is no more interested to be appointed as Principal of the College.

Hence, the appellant was the only candidate available from the select list for being offered appointment as Principal of the College. As his claim was not being considered, he filed a petition before the Court.

The said writ petition was disposed of on November 11, 2020 with a direction to the Joint Director of Education, Aligarh Region, Aligarh to consider and decide the representation filed by the appellant.

In Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the claim of the appellant was considered and order dated June 26, 2021, a direction was issued for appointment of the appellant as Principal of the College. As far as competence of the Joint Director of Education to direct for appointment of the appellant as Principal is concerned, reference was made to Rule 13(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998.

It was further argued that in the Rules, there is no time limit prescribed for the life of a select list.

In response, counsel for Private respondent/writ petitioner submitted that, undisputedly, the select list, on the basis of which the appellant is seeking appointment, was notified on September 29, 2003.

The appellant was at Serial No 3 in the merit list. He was never a party in any litigation pending before the Court as it was a lis between the candidates at Serial Nos 1 and 2, which is still pending in the Court.

Though the litigation was pending, still, undisputedly, the candidate at Serial No 1 in the merit list namely Dr Dinesh Vashishth was issued an appointment letter on July 16, 2008 and he had even submitted his joining on July 19, 2008.

Counsel for the State submitted that the candidate at Serial No 1 in the merit list namely, Dr Dinesh Vashishth was issued an appointment letter on July 16, 2008 and he joined as Principal of the College on July 19, 2008. However, in the year 2011, he left the job and went back to his parent institution, where he was working prior to his appointment and joining as Principal of the College. He retired on July 31, 2020 after attaining the age of superannuation.

The Court observed that certain basic facts, which are not in dispute, are that an advertisement was issued for selection and appointment to the post of Principal of the College in the year 2002. The select list was notified on September 29, 2003 in the following order of merit:

1. Dr Dinesh Vashishth

2. Sudhir Kumar Gupta

3. Mashkoor Hasan

As is evident from the select list, the appellant was at Serial No 3 in the merit list. From the order dated September 3, 2008 passed by the Single Judge, filed by Sudhir Kumar Gupta, the candidate at Serial No 2 in the merit list, it is evident that there was some litigation pending in the Court with reference to the selection in question. Finally, it was upheld by the Supreme Court in the year 2008. It was a dispute between the candidates at Serial Nos 1 and 2 in the merit list, Dr Dinesh Vashishth and Sudhir Kumar Gupta.

The order dated September 3, 2008, the Single Judge of the Court had stayed operation of the orders therein, dated July 31, 2008 and August 12, 2008. In an appeal filed against the aforesaid order by Dr Dinesh Vashishth, the order passed by Single Judge was set aside on September 25, 2008 with a request to the Single Judge to decide the writ petition expeditiously. It was observed in the aforesaid order that the life of the select list would continue till the decision of the writ petition.

The Court held that the undisputed facts which emerge from the documents available on record are that in pursuance of the selection process, the candidate at Serial No 1 in the merit list namely, Dr Dinesh Vashishth was issued appointment letter on July 16, 2008.

In pursuance thereto, he submitted his joining report and was permitted to join as Principal of the College on July 19, 2008. He continued to work as such till the year 2011, as submitted by counsel for the State. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law that with the joining of a candidate in the select list, the process of selection is complete and the waiting list cannot be acted upon. Even if, for the time being, we do not opine on the issue regarding life of a select list herein, no rules were cited to show about the validity of a select list.

Only reference was made to the observation made by the Division Bench of the Court in Special Appeal, wherein it was recorded that the select list would remain valid till the decision of the writ petition filed by the Sudhir Kumar Gupta, who was at Serial No 2 in the merit list questioning the appointment of Dr Dinesh Vashishth who was at Serial No 1 in the merit list.

“The appellant was nowhere in the picture. The order could have relevance to the claim of Sudhir Kumar Gupta, for appointment as Principal and not for any other candidate.

Even otherwise, in the case in hand, the select list was notified on September 29, 2003 and appointment on the post was sought and offered to the appellant in the year 2020-21. The claim made by the appellant to the post, in the aforesaid factual matrix by filing a representation and then a writ petition in the year 2020, was otherwise also highly belated. The post in question was vacated by Dr Dinesh Vashishth in the year 2011″, the court further observed.

The Court said that it did not find any reason to interfere in the appeal, accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

The Allahabad High Court has disposed of a petition seeking to restrain the devotees from participating in Magh Mela at Prayagraj, stating that necessary steps were being taken by the state government and the Prayagraj Mela Authority, to make sure the pilgrims follw the government guidelines on Covid-19.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Piyush Agrawal passed this order, while hearing a PIL filed by Utkarsh Mishra.

Manish Goyal, Additional Advocate General, submitted that the government has already issued guidelines to be followed by the worshippers, who come to Magh Mela.

He submitted that a separate Prayagraj Mela Authority has been set up to monitor all the arrangements and check the rush of people at one place.

He further submitted that to advise people to take all precautions and not to create rush at Mela areas, they will issue public notices by different means of communication, apprising the devotees and the prospective pilgrims about the restrictions and guidelines issued by the government for the purpose.

In view of the stand taken by Counsel for the respondents, the Court disposed of the petition.