Allahabad High Court
Vinod Kumar vs State Of Up And 8 Others on 1 July, 2024
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:105639-DB
Court No. - 29
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 568 of 2024
Appellant :- Vinod Kumar
Respondent :- State Of Up And 8 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Sanjeev Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sarvesh Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard Shri Sanjeev Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant and Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
2. Present Special Appeal has been preferred assailing the validity of the judgment and order dated 1.5.2024 passed in Writ-A No.6679 of 2024 (Vinod Kumar vs. State of UP and 8 others) by which the writ petition was dismissed.
3. The petitioner-appellant claims to be husband of Smt. Lalti Devi Patel, who is working as Assistant Teacher in Rajkiya Kanya Ucchtar Madhyamik Vidyalay Kurhapatti, Dariyav, Bahadurpur, District Basti. He made a complaint to the District Inspector of Schools, Basti, wherein it was alleged that Smt. Lalwati Devi Patel is his legally wedded wife and during the subsistence of the first marriage with the petitioner, she married to another man namely Anil Kumar Patel s/o Kishan Lal Patel, resident of Sakin Purushottampur (Bedhipur), Post Khargapur, Police Station Soraon, District Prayagraj. The District Inspector of Schools vide an order dated 05.01.2024 has non-suited the said complaint, which was assailed before learned Single Judge in Writ A No.6679 of 2024 and learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner is having no locus standi to insist with the 9th respondent's employer that he must take action in his disciplinary jurisdiction against the 9th respondent for committing an act of bigamy, which may be a service misconduct.
4. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and upon perusing the impugned judgment and order, we notice that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an Intra-Court Special Appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity. As such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order.
5. Confronted with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the present Special Appeal may be dismissed as not pressed and leave may be accorded to press the appropriate relief before the appropriate forum.
6. With the aforesaid relief, the present Special Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
Order Date :- 1.7.2024
RKP
