Kamlesh Kumar Maddhesiya vs State Of U.P. And Others
2011 Latest Caselaw 4309 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 38
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 44747 of 2011
 

 
Petitioner :- Kamlesh Kumar Maddhesiya
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Kirtikar Pande
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,B.G.Singh,Y.K.Singh
 

 
Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.

Learned standing counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No.1. Sri B.G. Singh has entered appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Issue notice to respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6.

Each one of the respondents is granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within next two weeks.

List thereafter.

Earlier one Rajeev Singh had filed writ petition No.62142 of 2010 for quashing of the order dated 15.09.2010 passed by Special Secretary, Panchayati Raj. This Court on 21.10.2010 had proceeded to pass following order:

"Learned standing counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. Issue notice to respondent No.5.

Each one of the respondents is granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within next two weeks.

List thereafter.

Joining of respondent No.5 at the transferred place shall abide by final orders to be passed by this Court."

After the aforesaid order has been passed, record of writ petition No.44747 of 2011 reflects that from the office of Zila Panchayat, Ballia, an order has been passed  on 25.11.2010 mentioning therein that this Court on 21.10.2010 had proceeded to pass interim order and in pursuance of the aforementioned order  neither work has to be taken from Kamlesh Kumar Maddhesiya  nor salary be paid to him. While passing the aforesaid order, the order of this Court dated 21.10.2010 has been misread and misinterpreted, inasmuch as this Court had merely directed that Joining of respondent No.6 (wrongly mentioned as respondent No.5) at the transferred place shall abide by final orders to be passed by this Court. Once the order passed by this Court was clear and categorical, it  ought not to have been misread and interpreted in the way and manner, as has been done in the present case.

Consequently, the impugned order dated 25.11.2010 passed by Chairman, Zila Panchayat, Ballia, which on the face of it, has been

passed by misreading and misinterpreting the order of this Court dated 21.10.2010,  is directed to be kept in abeyance.

Order Date :- 2.9.2011

SRY