Riya Singh (Minor) (In Re 288 Habc ... vs State Of U.P., Thru. Prin. Secy., ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 5313 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

Reserved
 
Court No. - 2
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 574 of 2011
 

 
Petitioner :- Riya Singh (Minor) (In Re 288 Habc 2011)
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P., Thru. Prin. Secy., Home & Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Murli Manohar Srivastava
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Sri P.K.Punhani
 

 
Hon'ble Uma Nath Singh,J.

Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anil Kumar, J.)

We have heard Sri Murli Manohar Srivastava, learned counsel for appellant, learned Standing Counsel and Sri P.K. Punhani, learned counsel for respondent.

Smt. Sudha Singh,the mother of Km. Riya Singh filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the nature of Habeas Corpus for custody and welfare of minor girl Km. Riya Singh on the facts that she married with Sri Mahabeer Singh as per Hindu rituals on 09.12.2000, out of their wedlock, a daughter born on 25.09.2005, namely, Kumari Riya Singh. Thereafter, the relation between them had become strange, as a result of which they started living separately and Kumari Riya Singh is under the custody of his father Sri Mahabeer Singh, so the custody of minor may be given to her.

Learned Single Judge on 25.05.2011 passed an order in the said matter (Habeas Corpus No. 288 of 2011 Riya Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others), relevant portion of the said order on reproduction reads as under:-

"During course of introduction, I find her very much innocent. Therefore, looking into welfare of the child, I hereby issue direction to her parents to keep her in the Boarding School for her continuous study within three days from today, instead of keeping her under custody of either of them. I am informed that 'La� Martinere Girls College, Lucknow' maintains Boarding houses. Though the admission may be� over there, but keeping in her interest, I hereby� request� the Principal of La Martinere Girls College, Lucknow to admit her in appropriate class and this Court provides that the expenses of study in Boarding shall be borne by Mr. Mahaveer Singh, father of the child, who is Engineer in PWD Shahajanpur. He being earning person� is directed to bear the whole expenses of Riya Singh in the School including fooding, lodging and clothing etc.

Mrs. Sudha Singh shall have the right to meet with her daughter Riya Singh on holidays as per rules of the College. If she is interested in outing with Riya Singh, she can do so with the permission of the college, but by closing hours of Boarding she shall put her into Boarding.

Let certified copy of this order be placed before the 'Principal, La Martinere Girls College, Lucknow.

Keeping in view the observations made here-in-above, list on 11.7.2011."

Aggrieved by the said order, present special appeal (Special appeal No. 574 of 2011) has been filed by Smt. Sudha Singh as next friend and mother of Kr. Riya Singh under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules).

On behalf of respondent, Sri Mahabeer Singh (father of Km. Riya Singh) a preliminary objection has been raised to the effect that present special appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules is not maintainable.

In order to support the same, Sri P.K. Punhani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Mahabeer Singh submits that the writs of Habeas Corpus are essentially criminal writs, therefore, even under the provisions dealing with the filing of caveat, there is no mention about Habeas Corpus and further that the caveat is always filed in civil matters. Learned counsel Sri Punhani further submitted that normally the writs of Habeas Corpus are listed before the Division Benches of this Court dealing with criminal matters. Therefore, the writ of Habeas Corpus is considered to be a criminal matter.

In view of the abovesaid facts, Sri P.K. Punhani submits that present special appeal arising out of the order passed by learned Single Judge in the Habeas Corpus matter is not maintainable.

Sri Murli Manohar Srivastava, learned counsel for appellant while rebutting the said objection, in order to support the maintainability of the special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules submitted that under Constitutional remedies as provided in the Constitution of India, High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution has power to issue prerogative writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo-warranto and certiorari for enforcement of any of the fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for appellant further submits that there is a separate procedure provided under Rule 1 and 2 of Chapter XXI of Allahabad High Court Rules to file a Habeas Corpus in case of private party detention.

In view of the said facts, the submission/preliminary objection as raised on behalf of respondents that the order passed by learned Single Judge in the writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be challenged by way of special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules is incorrect and wrong and the said order can be challenged in special appeal.

Learned State counsel, Smt. Sangita Chandra, submitted that in the Allahabad High Court Rules with particular reference to Chapter XXI Rule 1, Habeas Corpus matters are treated as a civil matter and further in terms of the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court rendered in the case of Union of India & ors. vs. Indrajit Barua & ors. reported in 1980 (Supp.) SCC 696 it has been held that the writ of Habeas Corpus is a matter of composite nature, namely civil as well as criminal, therefore, a special appeal can be filed in such a matter against the order/judgment passed by learned Single Judge. Learned counsel also referred to a special appeal being special appeal no. 986 of 2007 (Mohd. Kamil and 2 others vs. Master Mohd. Salman) filed from the order of a learned Single Judge of this High Court in a Habeas Corpus matter. The order passed by the Division Bench in the special appeal was also questioned before Hon'ble the Apex Court in some Special Leave to Petition, which is said to have been dismissed.

During the course of hearing, we also had the privilege of assistance from some senior counsels, presently in Court, namely Mr. Raghvendra Singh and Mr. Prashant Chandra, who submitted that the writs are only a constitutional remedy provided in the Constitution for the acts which may be Civil or Criminal and, thus, a writ of Habeas Corpus is normally preferred against the criminal acts of illegal detention, which are otherwise punishable under the provisions of Indian Penal Code.

Thus, the principal question which has been arisen in the present case is in regard to the scope of Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 in respect of filing a Special Appeal against an order passed by learned Single Judge in Writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Right of appeal is a statutory right. A person can invoke right of appeal if it is so provided by Statute. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad was created by Letters Patent of His Majesty dated 17th March, 1866. The Letters Patent dated 17th March, 1866, provided for constitution of High Court, civil jurisdiction of the High Court, appeal to the High Court from Judges of the Court and provisions with regard to exercise of several jurisdiction by the High Court. Clause 10 of the Letters Patent was with regard to appeal to the High Court from Judges of the Court. Clause 10 of the Letter Patent is extracted below :

"10. And we do further ordain that an appeal shall lie to the said High Court of Judicature at Allahabad from the judgment (not being a judgment passed in exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the Superin- tendence of the said High Court and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, and not being a sentence or order passed or made in the exercise of the power of Superintendence under the provisions of Section 107 of the Government of India Act, or in the exercise of Criminal Jurisdiction) of one Judge of the said High Court or one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 105 of the Government of India Act, and that notwithstanding anything hereinbefore provided an appeal shall lie to the said High Court from a judgment of one judge of the said High Court or one Judge or any Division Court, pursuant to Section 108 of the Government of India Act, made on or after the first day of February one thousand nine hundred and twenty nine in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the Superintendence of the said High Court, where the Judge who passed the judgment declares that the case is a fit one for appeal; but that the right of appeal from other judgments of the Judges of the said High Court or of such Division Court shall be to us. Our heirs or successors or Our on Their Privy Council, as hereinafter provided."

The letter Patent dated 17th March, 1866 were amended by Letters Patents issued from time to time. Clause 35 of the Letters Patent which is relevant for the present subject provided that provisions of Letters Patent are subject to legislative powers of the Governor General in Legislative Council. Clause 35 is extracted below :

"35. And we do further ordain and declare that all the provisions of these Our Letters Patent are subject to the legislative powers of the Governor General in Legislative Council, and also of the Governor General in Council under Section seventy-one of the Government of India Act, 1915, and also of the Governor General in cases of emergency under Section seventy-two of that Act and may be in all respects amended and altered thereby."

The special appeal from judgment of the Judges of the High Court is used to be governed by aforesaid. Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948 was issued in exercise of the power conferred by Section 229 of Government of India, 1935, and all other powers enabling in that behalf which was published on 19th July, 1948 is Government of India, Gazette Extraordinary. By aforesaid Amalgamation Order High Court in Allahabad and the Chief Court in Oudh were amalgamated and it was provided that from the appointed dated they shall constitute one High Court by the name of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. Clause, 7, 15 and 17 of the Amalgamation Order, 1948 are relevant for the present purpose and are extracted as below :

"7. (1) The new High Court shall have, in respect of the whole of the United Provinces, all such original, appellate and other jurisdiction as, under the law in force immediately before the appointed day, is exercisable in respect of any part of that Province by either of the existing High Courts.

(2). The new High Court shall also have in respect of any area outside the United Provinces all such original appellate and other jurisdiction as under the law in force immediately before the appointed day in exercisable in respect of that area by the High Court in Allahabad.

.....................................

.....................................

15. The law in force immediately before the appointed day relating to appeals of His Majesty in Council or to the Federal Court from the High Court in Allahabad and the Judges and Division Courts thereof shall, with the necessary modifications apply in relation to the new High Court.

......................................

......................................

17. As from the appointed day-

(a) The Letters Patent of Her Majesty, dated the 17th March, 1866, establishing the High Court of judicature for the North-Western Provinces and Chapter II of the Oudh Courts Act, 1925 (U.P. Act IV of 1925) shall cease to have effect except for the purpose of construing, or giving effecst to, the provisions of this order.

(b) the Government of India (High Court Judges) Order, 1937, shall be further amended as follows :

(I) in the first Schedule in the entry relating to the High Court at Allahabad for the figures "12" the figure "21" shall be substituted, and the entry relating to the Chief Court of Oudh shall be omitted, and

(II) in the Second Schedule, the entry relating to the Chief Court of Oudh shall be omitted, and in the Note, the words " a Chief Judge and an acting Chief Judge" shall be omitted, and

(c) references in any Indian Law to either of the existing High Courts by whatever name shall, unless the context otherwise requires, be construed as references to the new High Court."

From perusal of Clause 17(a), it is clear that Letters Patent of her Majesty dated 17th March, 1866 was ceased to have effect except for the purpose of construing, or giving effect to, the provisions of this order. The jurisdiction of special appeal which was being exercised by the High Court prior to issue of Amalgamation Order, 1948 has been continued by virtue of Clauses 7 and 15 of the Amalgamation Order, hence by force of Clause 17(a) of the Amalgamation Order, the Letters Patent continued and governed the field of special appeal since the Amalgamation Order did not bring any change with regard to special appeals.

After coming into force of the Constitution of India, the Rules of the Courts were framed by Allahabad High Court in exercise of power conferred by Article 225 of the Constitution and all other powers enabling in that behalf. Article 225 of the Constitution in quoted as below :

"225. Jurisdiction of existing High Courts. Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and to the provisions of any law of the appropriate Legislature made by virtue of powers conferred on that Legislative by this Constitution, the jurisdiction of, and the law administered in, any existing High Court, and the respective powers of the Judges thereof in relation to the administration of justice in the Court, including any power to make Rules of Court and to regulate the sitting of the Court and of members thereof sitting alone or in Division Courts, shall be the same as immediately before the commencement of this Constitution.

Provided that any restriction to which the exercise of original jurisdiction by any of the High Courts with respect to any matter concerning the revenue or concerning any act ordered or done in the collection thereof was subject immediately before the commencement of this Constitution shall no longer apply to the exercise of such jurisdiction."

Article 225 of the Constitution of India provided that jurisdiction and law administered in any existing High Court shall be the same as immediately before the commencement of this Constitution subject to provisions of Constitution subject to provisions of Constitution and to the provisions of any law of the appropriate legislature may by virtue of power conferred on that Legislature by the Constitution.

In Rules of the Court framed in 1952, Chapter VIII, Rule 5 provided for special appeal. Chapter VIII, Rule 5 as it originally existed in Rules of the Court, 1952 is quoted as below :

"5. An appeal shall lie to the Court from the judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the Superintendence of the Court, and not being an order made in the exercise of rivisional jurisdiction, and not being an order passed or made in the exercise of its power of Superintendence, or in the exercise of Criminal Jurisdiction of one Judge, and an appeal shall lie to the Court from a judgment of one Judge made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the Superintendence of the Court, where the Judge who passed the judgment declares that the cases is a fit one for appeal."

A Bill was introduced, namely, U.P. High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) Bill, 1962. The aforesaid Bill was introduced to provide for Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The statement of objects and reasons for bringing the aforesaid Bill was stated in following words :

"Statement of Objects and Reasons :- The present law makes for multiplicity of appeals due to the provisions for appeals under the Letters Patent of the High Court, resulting in the inconvenience and expense to the litigants besides causing delay in the final disposal of a suit. This Bill, is, therefore, intended to provide for the Abolition of a Letters Patent Appeals against appellate jurisdiction of Single Judges in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad."

U.P. Act No. 14 of 1962, namely, the U.P. High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals ) Act, 1962 was passed by Uttar Pradesh Legislature which came into force with effect from 13th November, 1962. Section 3 of the aforesaid Act provided for abolition of special appeal from a judgment or order of one Judge of High Court, made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the Superintendence of High Court, Section 3 of U.P. Act No. 14 of 1962 is quoted as below :-

"3. (1) No appeal, arising from a suit or proceeding instituted or commenced, whether prior or subsequent to the enforcement of this Act shall lie to the High Court from a judgment or order of one Judge of the High Court, made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, in respect of a decree or order made by a Court, subject to the Superintendence of the High Court, anything to the contrary contained in Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of Her Majesty, dated the 17th March, 1866, read with Clause 17 of the U.P. High Courts' (Amalgamation) Order, 1948, or in any other law, notwithstanding.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub- Section (1) all appeals pending before the High Court on the date immediately preceding the date of enforcement of this Act shall continue to lie and be heard and disposed of as heretobefore, as if this Act had not been brought into force."

In view of the provisions of U.P. Act No. 14 of 1962, the Rules of the Court, 1952 were also amended vide notification dated 6th November, 1963. Chapter VIII, Rule 5 was substituted by following Rule :-

"5. An appeal shall lie to the Court from a judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the Superintendence of the Court and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction or in the exercise of its power of Superintendence or in the exercise of Criminal Jurisdiction) of one Judge."

Further amendments were made in U.P. Act No. 14 of 1962 in 1972 and 1975. Thereafter another Amendment Act was passed by Uttar Pradesh legislature, namely, Uttar Pradesh High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals )(Amendment) Act, 1981. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the aforesaid Act were as follows :-

"Prefatory Note - Statement of Objects and Reasons - Prior to the enactment of the Uttar Pradesh High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals )Act, 1962 a Letters Patent Appeal could (except in certain cases), be filed before a Division Bench of a High Court against the judgment of the Single Judge. In view of the circumstances obtaining after the establishment of the Supreme Court the said Act of 1962 was enacted under which Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of a Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court given in exercise of his appellate jurisdiction arising out of the judgment of a Subordinate Court in civil or other proceedings was abolished.

2. Amendments were made in the aforesaid Act in 1972 and 1975 to abolish the Letters Patent Appeals against the judgments of a Single Judge of the High Court in writ petitions arising out of certain judgments of the Board of Revenue, the Director of Consolidation, the District Judge and the Civil Judge.

3. Despite the aforesaid measures, the number of cases in the High Court, continued to increase and impediments in the way of speedy justice could not altogether be removed. It is, therefore, considered necessary to make a similar provision in the U.P. High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) Act, 1962 with a view to abolishing the Letters Patent Appeals against the judgment or order of a Single Judge of the High Court under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment order or award of the Subordinate Courts, Tribunals or Statutory Arbitrators made in exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act relating to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution or in respect of any order made in exercise of the appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any such Act, by the State Government or any officer or authority. It is also being provided that the pending Letters Patent Appeal shall continue to be disposed of as before.

The Uttar Pradesh High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) (Amendment) Bill, 1981, is introduced accordingly."

By 1981 Amendment Act Section 5 of 1962 Act was substituted by following provisions :-

"2. Substitution of Section 5 of U.P. Act 14 of 1962. -For Section 5 of the Uttar Pradesh High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) Act, 1962, the following section shall be substituted, namely :-

"5. Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals in certain other cases.-(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of Her Majesty, dated March 17, 1866 read with Clauses 7 and 17 of the U.P. High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948, or in any other law, no appeal arising from an application or proceeding, instituted or commenced whether prior or subsequent to the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) (Amendment) Act, 1981, shall lie to the High Court from a judgment or order of one Judge of the High Court, made in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution, in respect of any judgment, order or award -

(a) of a Tribunal, Court of statutory Arbitrator made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, or

(b) of the Government or any officer or authority, made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any such Act.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), all appeals of the nature referred to in that sub-section pending before the High Court immediately before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) (Amendment) Act, 1981, shall be heard and disposed of as if that sub-section had not been enacted."

Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Courts was again amended by Notification dated 27th July, 1883 to make it in accord with Section 5 of Amendment Act, 1881 Chapter VIII, Rule 5 now existing in the Rules of the Court is as follows :-

5. Special Appeal.- An appeal shall lie to the Court from a judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction) in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the superintendence of the Court and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction (or in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment, order or award-(a) of a Tribunal, Court or Statutory Arbitrator made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitutions or (b) of the Government or any officer or authority, made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any such Act of one Judge."

Moreover, so far as the filing of writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 is concerned, the provisions are provided under Rule 1 & 2 of Chapter XXI, the relevant portion of Rule 1 quoted hereinunder :

"1. Application - An application under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus except against private custody, if not sent by post or telegram shall be made to the Division Bench appointed to received applications or, on any day on which no such Bench is sitting, to the Judge appointed to received applications in civil matters. In the later event, the Judge shall direct that the application be laid before a Division Bench for orders."

In view of the provisions as provided under Rule 1 of Chapter XXI of the Allahabad High Court Rules, it is clear that so far as the matter in writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution does not come within the ambit and parameters of criminal matters.

Further, scope of Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules came into consideration before Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kuldeep Kumar Tripathi Vs. Rang Bahadur and others [2010(3) ADJ 334 (FB)] after placing reliance on Division Bench judgment of this Court in Vajara Yojna Seed Farm Kalyanpur Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II U.P. Kanpur, (2003) 1 UPLBEC 496 in Paragraph 64 held as under:-

"Para - 64. From the above discussions and looking into the provisions of U.P. Act No. 14 of 1962 as amended by Amendment Act of 1981 and Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court, 1952, special appeal is excluded from a judgment of one Judge of this Court in following categories :-

(1) judgment of one Judge passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the superintendence of the Court.

(ii) Judgment of one Judge in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

(iii) Judgment of one Judge made in the exercise of its power of superintendence.

(iv) Judgment of one Judge made in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction.

(v) judgment of order of one Judge made in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment, order or award of a Tribunal, Court or Statutory Arbitrator made or purported to be made in the exercise of purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the matters enumerated in State List or Concurrent List.

(vi) Judgment or order of one Judge made in exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment, order or award by the Court or any officer or authority made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act."

Hence, a combined reading of the aforesaid provisions i.e. Rule 5 of Chapter VIII read with Rule 1 & 2 of Chapter XXI of the Allahabad High Court Rules, there is neither legal impediment nor any bar in respect to filing of special appeal against an order passed by learned Single Judge under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court as none of the condition is debars if a person/petitioner files a special appeal against an order of learned Single Judge as provided under Chapter VIII Rule 5. As certain category of special appeals have been excluded from the purview of Chapter VIII Rule 5 but there is no exclusion with regard to judgment of learned Single Judge deciding a writ petition in the nature of Habeas Corpus. Had the Legislature intended to exclude the said appeal also, the same could have been specifically provided.

Further, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Nivedita Singh Vs. Dr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, 2003 (6) AWC 5663, wherein the facts are that a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed before learned Single Judge by this Court which included Dr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, impleaded as respondent no.2 to produce the alleged detenu, the petitioner, described as Smt. Nivedita Singh wife of Shri Abhishekh Kumar Singh, daughter of Dr. K. K. Mishra, relief/direction has been sought that the respondents be directed not to interfere in the matrimonial life of the petitioner, allowing her to live peacefully. Initially learned Single Judge has passed certain directions in the said matter thereafter the same was challenged by Smt. Nivedita Singh by way of special appeal No. 735 of 2003 under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules and a Division Bench of this Court entertained the said special appeal and adjudicated the matter on merit.

For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered opinion that order passed by learned Single Judge, in the writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be challenged by way of Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.

Order Date :- 20.10.2011     (Anil Kumar, J.)  (Uma Nath Singh, J.)
 
Ravi/