Allahabad High Court
Jai Prakash vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 9 July, 2019
Bench: Yashwant Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22011 of 2019
Petitioner :- Jai Prakash
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Chandra Verma,Devesh Kumar Verma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner aggrieved by the fact that although his statutory appeal has been entertained, no orders have been passed on the stay application.
The appeal itself had been instituted against an order passed by the District Magistrate purporting to recover surcharge from the petitioner in exercise of powers conferred by Section 27 of the 1947 Act read with Rule 256 of the Rules framed thereunder. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of the District Magistrate is wholly without jurisdiction inasmuch as the provisions aforementioned do not clothe him with any jurisdiction to make an order of surcharge. He additionally placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Mool Chand Yadav Vs. Raza Buland Sugar Company Limited [1982 (3) SCC 484] to submit that it was incumbent upon the Appellate Authority to accord interim protection in case the appeal was being admitted and in failing to do so he has clearly committed a manifest illegality.
Learned Standing Counsel submitted that rather than keeping this petition pending on the board of this Court, the ends of justice would merit the matter being disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal expeditiously.
Prima facie and from the submissions addressed, this Court finds itself unable to sustain the procedure as adopted by the second respondent. Once the appeal was being admitted for being considered on merits, it was incumbent upon the said respondent to consider the application for stay which was moved. Non consideration of the stay application would clearly render the appeal otiose for all practical purposes.It is these situations which were addressed in Mool Chand Yadav. More importantly, the Court notes the jurisdictional challenge which is raised to the orders passed by the District Magistrate.
In view thereof, this petition shall stand disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to decide the pending appeal on merits with expedition. Till the disposal of the appeal and subject to the petitioner cooperating in its disposal and not taking any unnecessary adjournments, no coercive measures shall be adopted against the petitioner pursuant to the orders passed by the District Magistrate which form subject matter of the appeal.
Order Date :- 9.7.2019
faraz
