Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Dev Prasad Tiwari on 25 January, 2022
Page 1 of 44
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 209 of 2021
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Principal Secretary, Mantralaya,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Secretary General Administrative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
3. The Collector, District- Bastar (Jagdalpur) (C.G.)
---- Appellants
Versus
Arun Kumar Sharma, S/o Late Narayan Sharma, Aged About 65 Years,
R/o Mother Teresa Ward, B-90, Jagdalpur, Bastar (C.G.)- 494001.
---- Respondent
WA No. 210 of 2021
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Principal Secretary, Mantralaya,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Secretary General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
3. The Collector District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.)
---- Appellants
Versus
Ramadhar Chandra, S/o Shri Mayaram Chandra, Aged About 63 Years,
R/o Village- Belakachar, Dongro, Village- Panchayat, Post Office- Balco
Nagar, District- Korba (C.G.)
---- Respondent
WA No. 224 of 2021
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Principal Secretary, Mantralaya,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Secretary General Administrative Department Mahanadi Bhawan,
Atal Nagar Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
3. The Collector, District- Raipur (C.G.)
---- Appellants
Versus
Shri Ashok Shesh, S/o Ganpat Rao Shesh, Aged About 73 Years, R/o
H.No. I/07, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, New Puraina, Puraina (Amlidih),
Ravi Gram, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
---- Respondent
WA No. 223 of 2021
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh,
General Administration, Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, (C.G.)- 492002.
2. Collector Bilaspur, Tehsil & District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
3. Collector Janjgir- Champa, Tehsil & District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.)
---- Appellants
Versus
Ramendra Prasad Rathore, S/o Late Shri Ramadheen Rathore, Aged
About 78 Years, Occupation- Cultivation, R/o Village- Portha, Tehsil-
Sakti, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.)
---- Respondent
WA No. 226 of 2021
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Principal Secretary, Mantralay,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Secretary General Administrative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Atal Nagar Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
3. The Collector, District - Durg (C.G.)
---- Appellants
Versus
Gaffar Khan, S/o Late Jabbar Khan, Aged About 66 Years, R/o Nurani
Chowk, Raja Talab Raipur, District- Raipur- 492001 (C.G.)
---- Respondent
WA No. 221 of 2021
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Principal Secretary, Mantralaya,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Secretary General Administrative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Atal Nagar Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
3. The Collector, District- Raigarh (C.G.)
---- Appellants
Versus
Prem Prasad Gupta, S/o Bhuneshwar Sav, Aged About 59 Years,
Resident of 71, Karbala Road, Jashpur Ward 07, Patthalgaon, Jashpur
(C.G.)- 491331.
---- Respondent
WA No. 244 of 2021
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Principal Secretary, Mantralaya,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Secretary General Administrative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
3. The Collector Tahsil, District- Raigarh (C.G.)
---- Appellants
Versus
Smt. Janki Kukreja, W/o Late Shri Pratap Singh Kukreja, Aged About 68
Years, R/o Pakki Kholi, Sindhi Colony, Chakradhar Nagar Raigarh, Tahsil
& District- Raigarh (C.G.)
---- Respondent
WA No. 229 of 2021
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Principal Secretary, Mantralaya,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Secretary General Administrative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Atal Nagar Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
3. The Collector, District - Durg (C.G.)
---- Appellants
Versus
Shri Hridaynarayan Nirvani, S/o Baladas Nirvani, Aged About 60 Years,
R/o Nirvani Gali, Ward No.06, Bemetara, District- Durg (C.G.)
---- Respondent
WA No. 313 of 2021
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Principal Secretary, Mantralaya,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Secretary General Administrative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Atal Nagar Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
3. The Collector, Tahsil, District - Raigarh (C.G.)
---- Appellants
Versus
Lakhpati Pradhan @ Acharya Chenanand, S/o Late Shri Mansa Ram,
Aged About 70 Years, R/o Village- Koilibahal, Raigarh, Tahsil & District-
Raigarh (C.G.)
---- Respondent
WA No. 320 of 2021
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Chief Secretary General Administration
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Naya Mantralaya Raipur,
District - Raipur (C.G.)
2. Additional Chief Secretary Finance Department, State of Chhattisgarh,
Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
3. Collector, Durg District- Durg (C.G.) (Respondents In Writ Petition)
---- Appellants
Versus
Domar Singh Chandraker, S/o Siya Ram Chandraker, Aged About 73
Years, R/o Panchasheel Nagar, Ward No 1, Durg (C.G.)... (Petitioner)
---- Respondent
WA No. 289 of 2021
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Principal Secretary, Mantralay,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Secretary General Administrative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)
3. The Collector, District- Raipur (C.G.)
---- Appellants
Versus
Shri Asit Bhattacharya, S/o Late Shri Ramendra Nath Bhattacharya,
Aged About 67 Years, R/o House No. 1066/21, Raman Mandir, Near Old
Santumal Oil Mill, Fafadih, Raipur (C.G.)
---- Respondent
WA No. 325 of 2021
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Principal Secretary, Mantralaya,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Secretary General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Atal Nagar Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
3. The Collector, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.)
---- Appellants
Versus
Bahor Singh Kashyap, S/o Bahadur Singh Kashyap, Aged About 80
Years, R/o Jawalpur, Janjgir- Champa, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)-
495559.
---- Respondents
WA No. 328 of 2021
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Principal Secretary, Mantralaya,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Secretary General Administrative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
3. The Collector, District- Raipur (C.G.)
---- Appellants
Versus
Shri Suhas Deshpande, S/o Laxmikant Deshpande, Aged About 63
Years, R/o Shanti Vihar Colony, Dangania, Sunder Nagar,
Bindrawangarh, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
---- Respondent
WA No. 343 of 2021
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Principal Secretary, Mantralaya,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2. Secretary General Administration Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
3. Collector, Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
---- Appellants
Versus
Smt. Ramsheela Yadav, Wd/o Late Mohan Lal Yadav, Aged About 74
Years, R/o Village- Saragaon, Tahsil- Champa, District- Janjgir-Champa
(C.G.)
---- Respondent
WA No. 346 of 2021
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Principal Secretary, Mantralaya,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Secretary General Administrative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
3. The Collector, District- Raipur (C.G.)
---- Appellants
Versus
Raman Lal Agrawal, S/o Radheshyam Agrawal, Aged About 81 Years,
Resident of Gopal D-1, Nayapara Ward, Krishna Nagar, Bhatapara,
District- Balodabazar (C.G.)- 493118.
---- Respondent
WA No. 364 of 2021
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Principal Secretary, Mantralaya
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Secretary General Administrative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
3. The Collector, District- Raipur (C.G.)
---- Appellants
Versus
Vijaya Deshpande, W/o Late Vasant Deshpande, Aged About 78 Years,
R/o Md 40, Housing Board Colony Kota, Raipur, Ravi Shankar
University, District- Raipur (C.G.)
---- Respondent
WA No. 357 of 2021
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through- The Principal Secretary, Mantralay,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Secretary General Administrative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan
Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
3. The Collector, District - Raipur (C.G.)
---- Appellants
Versus
Lochan Ram Sahu, S/o Gaya Ram Sahu, Aged About 61 Years, R/o
Panduka Kutena, Kutena, Bindrawangarh, Raipur (C.G.)- 492109
---- Respondent
WA No. 358 of 2021
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through- The Principal Secretary, Mantralay,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Secretary General Administrative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
3. The Collector, District - Raigarh (C.G.)
---- Appellants
Versus
Shri Vishwanath Ram, S/o Dokhar Ram, Aged About 69 Years, R/o 03,
In front of Aara Mill, Gadakata, Kunkuri, Ward No. 1 Kunkuri, Jashpur
(C.G.)- 496225.
---- Respondent
WA No. 361 of 2021
1. State of C.G., Through The Principal Secretary, Mantralaya, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Secretary General Administrative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
3. The Collector, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
---- Appellants
Versus
Santosh Soni, S/o Naval Kishore Soni, Aged About 57 Years, R/o H.No.
23, Ward No. 06, Sonar Para, Champa, Janjgir-Champa, District-
Janjgir- Champa (C.G.)- 495671.
---- Respondent
WA No. 362 of 2021
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Principal Secretary, Mantralaya,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Secretary General Administrative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
3. The Collector, Tahsil & District- Raigarh (C.G.)
---- Appellants
Versus
Rajkishore Singh, S/o Late Shri Vasudev Singh, Aged About 70 Years,
R/o Kabir Chowk, Jute Mill, Raigarh, Tahsil & District- Raigarh (C.G.)
---- Respondent
WA No. 366 of 2021
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Principal Secretary, Mantralaya,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Secretary General Administrative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
3. The Collector, Tahsil, District- Raigarh (C.G.)
---- Appellants
Versus
Sanjay Prabhakar Tamaskar, S/o Late Shri Prabhakar Tamaskar, Aged
About 63 Years, R/o Gaurishankar Mandir Road, Raigarh, Tahsil &
District- Raigarh (C.G.)
---- Respondent
WA No. 367 of 2021
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Principal Secretary, Mantralaya,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2. Secretary General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
3. The Collector, Janjgir, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.)
---- Appellants
Versus
Naresh Sharma, S/o Jagdish Chandra Tiwari, Aged About 71 Years, R/o
368, Tiwari Niwas, Main Road, Infront of D.K. Medical Store, Naila,
District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.)
---- Respondent
WA No. 368 of 2021
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, General Administration
Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur
(C.G.)
2. Collector Balodabazar- Bhatapara District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara
(C.G.)
---- Appellants
Versus
1. Smt. Janki Gulabani, W/o Ishwar Kishandas Gulabani, Aged About 75
Years, R/o M-52, Yadunandan Nagar Tifra, Bilaspur Near Hanuman
Mandir, Bazar Chowk, Tifra, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
2. Accountant General, Chhattisgarh, Zero Point, Balodabazar Road, P.O.
Vidhan Sabha, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
---- Respondents
WA No. 369 of 2021
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Principal Secretary, Mantralaya,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Secretary General Administrative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Atal Nagar Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
3. The Collector Tahsil, District- Raigarh (C.G.)
---- Appellants
Versus
Pramod Saraf, S/o Late Shri Sagarmal Saraf, Aged About 64 Years, R/o
In front of Aakashwani Kendra, Chote Atarmuda, Raigarh, Tahsil &
District- Raigarh (C.G.)
---- Respondent
WA No. 370 of 2021
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Principal Secretary, Mantralaya,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Secretary General Administrative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Atal Nagar Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
3. The Collector, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.)
---- Appellants
Versus
Badri Prasad Dewangan, S/o Dwarika Prasad Dewangan, Aged About
66 Years, R/o Jawalpur, Janjgir Champa, District- Janjgir-Champa
(C.G.)- 495559.
---- Respondent
WA No. 371 of 2021
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh,
General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal
Nagar, Nava Raipur (C.G.)- 492002.
2. Collector Bilaspur, Tehsil & District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
---- Appellants
Versus
1. Kishore Tatibandwale, S/o Late Shri Wasudev Rao Tatibandwale, Aged
About 62 Years, R/o C/o Avinash Bapte, Kila Ward, Juna Bilaspur,
District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
2. Dattatrey Tripurwar, S/o Late Shri Bhalchandra Rao Tripurwar, Aged
About 62 Years, Opposite Hero Honda Showroom, Sarkanda, Bilaspur
(C.G.)
3. Jainarayan Tripathi, S/o Late Shri Hargovind Tripathi, Aged About 66
Years, R/o 640, Tripathi Gali, Shanichari Bazar, Fish Market Bilaspur,
District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
4. Mahesh Tamaskar, S/o Late Shri Manohar Tamaskar, Aged About 65
Years, R/o J-6 Prijat Colony, Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur
(C.G.)
5. Gajanand Dighraskar, S/o Late Shri Bal Krishna Dighraskar, Aged About
64 Years, R/o Tilak Nagar, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
6. Dr. D.P. Agrawal, S/o Late Shri Gajanand Agrawal, Aged About 80 Years,
R/o Vidya Nagar Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
7. Surendranath Jha, S/o Late Shri Badri Prasad Jha, Aged About 74
Years, Behind Shekhar Tiwari Hospital, Priyadarshini Nagar, Bilaspur,
District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
8. Motilal Pamnani, S/o Late Shri Bhagchandra Pamnani, Aged About 72
Years, R/o House No. 79, Ward No. 03, Near Abkari Bunglow,
Warehouse Road, Jarhabhata, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
9. Premshankar Patanwar, S/o Late Shri Jivrakhan Lal Patanwar, Aged
About 79 Years, R/o Patanwar Gali, Opposite Hero Honda Showroom
Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
10. Anil Shukla, S/o Late Shri Devnarayan Shukla, Aged About 65 Years, R/o
Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
11. Pramod Shukla, S/o Late Shri Prahlad Prasad Shukla, Aged About 64
Years, R/o Hatri Chowk, Juna Bilaspur, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
12. Sunder Shyam Sachdeo, S/o Late Shri Laxmichandra Sachdeo, Aged
About 83 Years, R/o Madhuban Road, Nariyal Kothi, Dayalband Bilaspur,
District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
13. Bharat Lal Vaishnav, S/o Late Shri Ram Gopal Vaishnav, Aged About 63
Years, R/o Qtr. No. 106, Gitanjali Park, Mangla Road, Bilaspur, District-
Bilaspur (C.G.)
14. Harishankar Dubey, S/o Late Shri Ramdulare Dubey, Aged About 87
Years, R/o Near Baghwa Mandir, Purana Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District-
Bilaspur (C.G.)
15. Goverdhan Gulhare, S/o Late Shri Jagannath Prasad, Aged About 69
Years, R/o Munnulal Shukla Marg, Gondpara, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur
(C.G.)
16. Shivnarayan Gole, S/o Late Shri Bhagwandin Gole, Aged About 84
Years, R/o Dayalband, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
17. Kanhaiyalal Goyal, S/o Late Shri Ramavtar Goyal, Aged About 73 Years,
R/o Dayalband, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
18. Surendra Mohan Dhodhi, S/o Late Shri Madan Mohan Dhodhi, Aged
About 68 Years, R/o Samta Colony, Tikrapara Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur
(C.G.)
19. Shashikant Konher, S/o Late Shri Prabhakar Rao Konhar, Aged About 63
Years, R/o Near Konher Garden, Tilak Nagar, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur
(C.G.)
20. Dinesh Kumar Tamrakar, S/o Late Shri Ganesh Prasad, Aged About 70
Years, R/o Mangli Bazar Road, Pendra Road, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur
(C.G.)
21. Komalchandra Jain, S/o Late Shri Hukumchandra Jain, Aged About 75
Years, R/o Pendra Road, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
22. Purushottam Kadam, S/o Late Shri Krishna Rao Kadam, Aged About 70
Years R/o Tilak Nagar, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
23. Diwakar Tiwari, S/o Late Shri Jeevrakhan Lal Tiwari, Aged About 62
Years, R/o House No. C-9, Agroha Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
24. Netram Vishwakarma, S/o Late Shri Mathanlal Vishwakarma, Aged
About 64 Years, R/o Kumharpara, Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bilaspur, District-
Bilaspur (C.G.)
25. T. Damodar Swami, S/o Late Shri R.T. Kandaswami, Aged About 74
Years, R/o Chantidih, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
26. Shiv Kumar Soni, S/o Late Shri Darbari Lal Soni, Aged About 74 Years,
R/o Ward No. 13, Rest House Road, Gourella, Pendra Road, Pendra
Road, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
27. Bhagwati Gupta, W/o Late Shri Ramlal Gupta, Aged About 74 Years,
Mangli Bazar, Gourella, Pendra Road, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
28. Smt. Geeta Motwani, W/o Late Shri Uddhav Motwani, Aged About 57
Years, R/o Kishore Bhawan Behind Nagorao Shesh School, Juna
Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
---- Respondent
WA No. 372 of 2021
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Principal Secretary, Mantralaya,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Secretary General Administrative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Atal Nagar Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
3. The Collector, District- Durg (C.G.)
---- Appellants
Versus
Shri Kishan Chandrakar, S/o Sawant Chandrakar, Aged About 68 Years,
R/o Ward No. 22, Kailash Nagar, Station Para, Dhamdha Nagar, District-
Durg (C.G.)
---- Respondent
WA No. 373 of 2021
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Principal Secretary, Mantralay,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Secretary General Administrative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
3. The Collector, District- Raipur (C.G.)
---- Appellants
Versus
Amita Sharma, W/o Late Omprakash Sharma, Aged About 55 Years, R/o
Rohinipuram, Alakhnanda Apartment Gol Chowk, Raipur, District- Raipur
(C.G.)
---- Respondent
WA No. 376 of 2021
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Principal Secretary, Mantralaya,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Secretary General Administrative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Atal Nagar Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
3. The Collector, District- Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.)
---- Appellants
Versus
Lakhan Lal Pathik Alias Anand Murti (Sanyasi), S/o Johan Lal, Aged
About 73 Years, R/o Behind Radha Swami Satsang, Village- Rudri,
Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.)
---- Respondent
WA No. 391 of 2021
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Principal Secretary, Mantralay,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Secretary General Administrative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.)
3. The Collector, District- Raipur (C.G.)
---- Appellants
Versus
Avadhutika Anand Suchita Acharya, D/o Ramanand Shukla, Aged About
70 Years, R/o Bajrang Mandir Chowk Dharampura, Raipur (C.G.)
---- Respondent
WA No. 392 of 2021
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Principal Secretary, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Secretary General Administrative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
3. The Collector Tahsil, District- Raigarh (C.G.)
---- Appellants
Versus
Amrik Singh Sansova, S/o Late Shri Narayan Sikh Singh, Aged About 69
Years, R/o 92, Korodimal Colony Raigarh, At present R/o Laxmi Nivas,
Near Guest House, Vivekanand Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Bhilai & District-
Durg (C.G.)
---- Respondent
WA No. 393 of 2021
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh
General Administration Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Atal
Nagar, Nava Raipur (C.G.)- 492002.
2. The Collector Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
---- Appellants
Versus
Subhash Singh, S/o Late Devendra Singh, Aged About 79 Years,
Loktantra Sainani, R/o Near Polytechnic, Durga Chowk Ward No. 3,
Khairagarh, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
---- Respondent
WA No. 395 of 2021
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Principal Secretary, Mantralaya,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Secretary General Administrative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Atal Nagar Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
3. The Collector, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.)
---- Appellants
Versus
Dev Prasad Tiwari, S/o Kaushal Prasad Tiwari, Aged About 65 Years,
R/o 125, Ghiwra, Janjgir-Champa, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)-
495661.
---- Respondent
WA No. 396 of 2021
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Principal Secretary, Mantralaya,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Secretary General Administrative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
3. The Collector, District- Bastar (Jagdalpur) (C.G.)
---- Appellants
Versus
Amita Jaiswal, W/o Late Kiran Kishore Jaiswal, Aged About 61 Years,
R/o 325, Pandit Dindayal Upadhyay Ward, Azad Chowk, Jagdalpur,
District- Bastar (C.G.)
---- Respondent
WA No. 401 of 2021
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Principal Secretary, Mantralaya,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Secretary General Administrative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
3. The Collector, District- Raipur (C.G.)
---- Appellants
Versus
Kirti Chauhan, W/o Late Kuntal Singh Chauhan, Aged About 75 Years,
R/o 46/871, Nayapara Raod, Vir Shivaji Chowk, Raipur, District- Raigarh
(C.G.)
---- Respondent
WA No. 402 of 2021
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Principal Secretary Mantralaya,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Secretary General Administrative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan
Atal Nagar Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
3. The Collector, Tahsil & District- Raigarh (C.G.)
---- Appellants
Versus
Suganchand Farmania, S/o Late Shri Vishambhar Dayal Farmania, Aged
About 77 Years, R/o Kotra Road, Railway Bangla Para Raigarh, Tahsil &
District- Raigarh (C.G.)
---- Respondent
WA No. 403 of 2021
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through- The Principal Secretary, Mantralay,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Secretary General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
3. The Collector, District- Raipur (C.G.)
---- Appellants
Versus
Smt. Narmada Sahu, W/o Late Shri Chaitram Sahu, Aged About 81
Years, R/o Ward No. 06 Sonkar Gali, Bargudi Para, Azad Chowk, Arang,
District- Raipur (C.G.)
---- Respondent
WA No. 404 of 2021
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through- The Principal Secretary, Mantralay,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Secretary General Administrative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
3. The Collector, District- Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.)
---- Appellants
Versus
Charan Singh Agrawal, S/o Late Ami Lal Agrawal, Aged About 78 Years,
R/o Ward No. 16 Main Road Line Shivnandpur, Bishrampur,
Shivnandpur, Alias Omkarbahara, Surajpur- 497226 (C.G.)
---- Respondent
WA No. 405 of 2021
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Principal Secretary, Mantralaya,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Secretary General Administrative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Atal Nagar Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
3. The Collector, District - Mahasamund (C.G.)
---- Appellants
Versus
Manilal Chandrakar, S/o Daulal Chandrakar, Aged About 65 Years, R/o
Makan No. 1/3, Ward No. 01 Khamhariya, Mahasamund (C.G.)-493449
---- Respondent
WA No. 406 of 2021
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Principal Secretary, Mantralaya,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
2. Secretary General Administrative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal
Nagar Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
3. The Collector, District - Bilaspur (C.G.)
---- Appellants
Versus
Smt. Rupadevi Soni, W/o Late Sita Ram Kaushal, Aged About 75 Years,
R/o Old Bus Stand Imlipara, Arvind Kirana Shop Lane, District - Bilaspur
(C.G.)
---- Respondent
WPC No. 1580 of 2021
Shri Chandra Shekhar alias Maluram Sharma, S/o Shri Ram Kumar
Sharma, Aged About 81 Years, MISA Bandi Honorarium Holder, R/o
House No. 263, Near Shubham Chowk, Tilda Neora, District- Raipur
(C.G.)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary General Administration
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Collector, Raipur (C.G.)
---- Respondents
WPC No. 83 of 2021
Narayan Singh Chauhan, S/o Dhur Singh Chouhan, Aged About 73
Years, R/o Village- Bodtara, Ward No. 01, P.O. Jarod, Balodabazar,
Tahsil & District- Bhatapara - Balodabazar (C.G.)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Secretary, General Administration
Department Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2. Accountant General, Chhattisgarh, Zero Point, Balodabazar Road, P.O.
Vidhan Sabha, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)
3. Collector Balodabazar - Bhatapara, District Balodabazar - Bhatapara
(C.G.)
---- Respondent
WPC No. 2041 of 2021
Shri Suhas Deshpande, S/o Laxmikant Deshpande, Aged About 64
Years, R/o Shanti Vihar Colony, Dangania, Sunder Nagar,
Bindrawangarh, Raipur (C.G.)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Principal Secretary, Mantralaya,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Secretary, General Administrative Department Mahanadi Bhawan,
Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)
3. The Collector, District- Raipur (C.G.)
---- Respondents
WPC No. 2474 of 2021
Kishan Lal Tulshyan, S/o Chhotelal Tulshyan, Aged About 74 Years, R/o
Ambedkar Chowk, Ward No. 14, Akaltara, Post Office Akaltara, District-
Janjgir- Champa (C.G.)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through- The Secretary, General Administration
Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, District- Raipur
(C.G.)
2. Accountant General, Chhattisgarh, Zero Point Balodabazar Road, P.O.
Vidhan Sabha, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)
3. Collector Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
---- Respondent
WPC No. 4805 of 2021
1. Shri Asit Bhattacharya, S/o Late Ramendranath Bhattacharya, Aged
About 68 Years, R/o House No. 1066/21, Raman Mandir, Near Old
Santumal Oil Mill, Fafadih, Raipur (C.G.)
2. Krishna Kumar Soni, S/o Gauri Prasad Soni, Aged About 60 Years, R/o
Gram Jamaha, Post Nawagaon, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)- 495334.
3. Sudakshina Shende, W/o Late Dileep Shende, Aged About 65 Years, R/o
2/544, Ward No. 12, Near Laxminarayan Mandir, Kota, Raipur, District-
Raipur (C.G.)
4. Urmila Sahu, W/o Late Shri Amrit Lal Sahu, Aged About 59 Years, R/o
181, Ward No. 19, Panchshil Ward Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund
(C.G.)
5. Vandana Ganodwale, W/o Late Murlidhar Ganodwala, Aged About 82
Years, R/o 7, Udyan Marg Chouby Colony Raipur (C.G.)- 492001.
6. Bharatlal Soni, S/o Ghasi Ram Soni, Aged About 87 Years, R/o 02,
Beeta Bai Mohre Marg, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)- 495334.
7. Shri Ram Lal Soni, S/o Makhan Lal Soni, Aged About 69 Years, R/o of
13/09 Kalyan Ashram Jashpur, Ward 13 Jashpur Nagar, Patthalgaon,
Jashpur, District- Jashpur (C.G.)
8. Komal Bai Chandra, W/o Late Ramadhin Chandra, Aged About 54 Years,
R/o Ward No. 02, Chandra Para, Pihrid, Janjgir-Champa, District-
Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)- 495691.
9. Jagdish Upasane, S/o Dattatraya Prahlad Upasane, Aged About 68
Years, R/o Flat No. 106, Patrakar Parisar, Sector-5, Vasundhara,
Gaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201012, District- Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.
10. Dattatrayakhare, S/o Late Panduranga, Aged About 77 Years, R/o B-59,
Housing Board Colony, Near Sai Mandir Kota Raipur, District- Raipur
(C.G.)- 492010.
11. Rampyari Sahu, W/o Late Muniram Sahu, Aged About 69 Years, R/o
Mungeli, 126, Daupara, Main Road, Andruz Ward, Mungeli, District-
Mungeli (C.G.)- 495334.
12. Yashoda Bai Chandra, W/o Badri Prasad Chandra, Aged About 66
Years, R/o Ward No. 04, Basti Para, Pihrid, Janjgir-Champa, District-
Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)- 495691.
13. Babulal Chandra, S/o Late Gulapi Chandra, Aged About 64 Years, R/o
Ward No. 02, Dhangardipa Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.)- 496001.
14. Shri Laxmiprasad Gupta, S/o Late Bhuwaneshwar Sav, Aged About 68
Years, R/o Karbala Road, Masjeed Para, Jashpur, Ward No.07,
Jashpurnagar, Patthalgaon, District- Jashpur (C.G.)- 496331.
15. Madhuri Shukla, W/o Late Shesh Narayan Shukla, Aged About 60 Years,
R/o 222, Sundar Nagar, Bindrawangarh, District- Raipur (C.G.)- 492013.
16. Radha Bai Yadu, W/o Late Hariram Yadu, Aged About 53 Years, R/o
Ward No. 12, Munrethai, Raipur, Siltara, District- Raipur (C.G.)- 493111.
17. Ram Prem Dubey, S/o Jaimangal Prasad, Aged About 75 Years, R/o
Lakhanpuri, Charama, District- Bastar (Jagdalpur) (C.G.)
18. Sarojni Kesharwani, W/o Late Niranjan Prasad Kesharwani, Aged About
84 Years, R/o Plot No. 69, Kesharwani House, Gandhi Ward No. 9,
Mungeli, District- Mungeli (C.G.)- 495334.
19. Sushila Devi, W/o Late Bhikham Dev, Aged About 71 Years, R/o LIG-
857, Chhattisgarh Housing Board Colony, Sejbahar, Raipur, District-
Raipur (C.G.)
20. Mahendra Kumar Jain, S/o Gulab Chand Ji Jain, Aged About 70 Years,
R/o Ward 1, Near New Jain Mandir, Raipur Road, Gobra Nawapara,
Rajim, Abhanpur, Raipur (C.G.)- 493881.
21. Devidutt Joshi, S/o Tikaram Joshi, Aged About 78 Years, Narottam
Ganga Vihar, Phase-3, Harinagar, Kusumkheda, Nainital, Uttarakhand-
263139.
22. Shatrughn Prasad Verma, S/o Hiraman Verma, Aged About 61 Years,
Ward No. 01, Atal Chowk, Mohgaon, Raipur (C.G.)- 493114.
23. Girish Upasane, S/o Dattatray Upasane, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Ward
No.2, Behind Kisan Rice Mill, Gariyaband (C.G.)- 493889.
24. Jayant Tapas, S/o Dinkar Tapas, Aged About 61 Years, R/o House No.
15/387, Tapas Bhawan, Nawahar Nagar Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)-
492001.
25. Kulwant Singh, S/o Late Manmohan Singh, Aged About 77 Years, R/o
House No. 4/1 Bishrampur Van-B-Lain 1, Village Satpata, Tahsil
Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G.)
26. Punit Ram Sahu, S/o Bihari Ram Sahu, Aged About 76 Years, R/o 678,
Basin, Gariyaband, District- Gariyaband (C.G.)- 493992.
27. Vivek Govind Surange, S/o Govind Vasudeo Surange, Aged About 64
Years, R/o Block No.2, Flat No.31, Housing Board Colony Kachna Road,
Khamhardih, Shankar Nagar, Bindrawangarh, Tehsil & District- Raipur
(C.G.)- 492007.
28. Mahendra Kumar Chandrakar, S/o Sadaram Chandrakar, Aged About 66
Years, R/o Parsada-3 (Parsada) Palod, Aarang Raipur, District- Raipur
(C.G.)- 492101.
29. Shripal Jain, S/o Gulab Chand Jain, Aged About 81 Years, R/o
Jashpurnagar, District- Raigarh (C.G.)
30. Shanti Devi, W/o Late Banshi Lal, Aged About 72 Years, R/o Tikrapara,
Balod, Ward -4, Balod, District- Durg (C.G.)- 491226.
31. Abdul Nabi Abdul Rehmaan, S/o Abdul Rehman, Aged About 82 Years,
R/o Ganga Nagar Balapur Road By Pass Akola, Akola City Maharashtra
444002.
32. Laxmibai Pawar, W/o Late Narayan Rao Pawar, Aged About 81 Years,
R/o Ward No. 16, Civil Line Shikaripara, District- Balod (C.G.)- 491226.
33. Shri Jagdish Lal Uboweja, S/o Late Shri Lakhe Singh, Aged About 83
Years, R/o 124, Purani Mandi Ward No. 10, Saraipali, Mahasamund,
District- Mahasamund (C.G.)
34. Gorelal Dewangan, S/o Jethu Ram Dewangan, Aged About 80 Years,
R/o Jawalpur, Janjgir-Champa, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)- 495559.
35. Resham Thakur, W/o Late Keshav Thakur, Aged About 66 Years, R/o
H.N.O. 9/697 Thakkar Bapa, Ward 9 Gudhiyari Pahadi Para Raipur
(C.G.)- 492001.
36. Sachchidanand Upasane, S/o Dattatray Prahalad Upasane, Aged About
64 Years, R/o 42/1417 Dhamtari Road, In front of Police Ground, Nehru
Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)- 492001.
37. Gopal Vyas, S/o Late Poonamchand Vyas, Aged About 87 Years, R/o
MIG, Tatibandh Housing Board Colony, Aamanaka Raipur, District-
Raipur (C.G.) - 492010.
38. Ram Bai Yadu, W/o Late Shiv Kumar, Aged About 73 Years, R/o House
No. 1119, Ward No. 09, Pahadi Para, Gudhiyari, District- Raipur (C.G.)-
492009.
39. Smt. Chhaya Gupta, W/o Late Kashi Prasad Gupta, Aged About 67
Years, R/o House No. 280, Ward No. 12, Lane No. 01, Station Para,
Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)- 491441.
40. Jainab Begum, W/o Late Munawwar Pasha Siddiqui, Aged About 62
Years, R/o 25/803, Kali Nagar, Pandri, Near Kamlekirna Store, Raipur
(C.G.) - 492001.
41. Faqrunisha Khan, W/o Late Rafiq Mohammad Khan, Aged About 61
Years, R/o Ward No. 16, In front of 20 Kholi, Sukiudana, Chhindwara
(MP), District West Nimar, Madhya Pradesh.
42. Bhagya Shree Govardhan, W/o Late Ashok Gowardhan, Aged About 74
Years, R/o House No. 772, Ward No. 06, In front of Garima Press
Tilaknagar, Bilaspur (C.G.)- 495001.
43. Kumari Bai Soni, W/o Late Ramesh Soni, Aged About 81 Years, R/o
Purana Katchehri Marg, Ward No. 13, Kawardha, District- Kabirdham
(C.G.)
44. Itwara, W/o Late Chhatu Lal, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Jawalpur,
Janjgir-Champa, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)- 495559.
45. Laxminarayan Sharma, S/o Salik Ram Sharma, Aged About 67 Years,
R/o 52/1466 Chandrashekhar Nagar Near Payal Kirana Store Sudhir
Mukharji Ward 65 Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)- 492001.
46. Shanti Bai Jari, W/o Late Krishna Jari, Aged About 83 Years, R/o Ward
No. 17, Hikmi Para, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.)- 494001.
47. Mahendra Kaur Badal, W/o Late Mahendar Badal, Aged About 59 Years,
R/o - 2, Shankar Nagar Gramin, Nagri, District- Dhamtari (C.G.)-
493778.
48. Kumari Bai Soni, W/o Late Ramesh Soni, Aged About 81 Years, R/o
Purana Kutcheri Marg, Ward No. 13, Kawardha, District- Kabirdham
(C.G.)
49. Santosh Soni, S/o Naval Kishor Soni, Aged About 57 Years, R/o House
No. 23, Ward No. 6 Sonar Para Champa, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
50. Badri Prasad Dewangan, S/o Dwarika Prasad Dewangan, Aged About
66 Years, R/o Jawalpur, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
51. Amita Sharma, W/o Om Prakash Sharma, Aged About 55 Years, R/o
Rohinipuram, Alakhnanda Apartment Gol Chowk, Raipur (C.G.)
52. Kishan Chandrakar, S/o Sawant Chandrakar, Aged About 68 Years, R/o
Ward No. 22 Kailash Nagar, Station Para, Dhamdha Nagar, District-
Durg (C.G.)
53. Prabhakar Girdhar, S/o Yado Rao Girdhar, Aged About 75 Years, R/o
H.No. 62, Opposite Post Office Ward No. 12, Narsingh Ward
Dongargarh, Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
54. Vivek Govind Surange, S/o Govind Vasudev Surange, Aged About 64
Years, R/o Block No.2, Flat No 31, Housing Board Colony Kachna Road,
Khamardih, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)
55. Jayant Tapas, S/o Dinkar Tapas, Aged About 61 Years, R/o H.No.
15/387, Tapas Bhawan, Jawahar Nagar Raipur (C.G.)
56. Bahorsingh Kashyap, S/o Bhadur Singh Kashyap, Aged About 80 Years,
R/o Jawalpur, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
57. Manilal Chandrakar, S/o Daulal Chandrakar, Aged About 66 Years, R/o
H. No. 1/3 Ward No. 1 Khamhariya, District- Mahasamund (C.G.)
58. Avdhutika Anand Suchita Acharya, D/o Ramanand Sukla, Aged About 70
Years, R/o Bajrang Mandir Chowk, Raipur (C.G.)
59. Raman Lal Agrawal, S/o Radheshyam Agrawal, Aged About 82 Years,
R/o Gopal, D-1, Nayapara Ward, Krishna Nagar, Bhatapara, District-
Balodabazar (C.G.)
60. Dev Prasad Tiwari, S/o Kaushal Prasad Tiwari, Aged About 65 Years,
R/o 125 Ghivra, Janjgir-Champa, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
61. Rupa Devi Soni, W/o Late Sitaram Kaushal, Aged About 75 Years, R/o
Old Bus Stand Imlipara, Arvind Kirana Shop Lane, Bilaspur (C.G.)
62. Harish Lunia, S/o Dharmi Chand Lunia, Aged About 62 Years,
Mahamaya Ward No. 6, Lohramarg, District- Kawardha, (C.G.)- 491995.
63. Gaffar Khan, S/o Late Jabbar Khan, Aged About 67 Years, Noorani
Chowk, Raja Talab, Raipur (C.G.)
64. Prem Prasad Gupta, S/o Bhuneshwar Sav, Aged About 59 Years, R/o 71,
Karbala Road Jashpur, Ward No. 07, District- Jashpur (C.G.)
65. Lochan Ram Sahu, S/o Gayaram Sahu, Aged About 61 Years, R/o
Panduka, Kutena, Bindranavagarh, Raipur (C.G.)
66. Lakhanlal Pathik alias Anand Murti (Sanyasi), S/o Johan Lal, Aged About
73 Years, R/o Behind Radhaswami Satsang, Village- Rudri, Dhamtari
(C.G.)
67. Arun Kumar Sharma, S/o Late Narayan Sharma, Aged About 65 Years,
R/o Mother Terresa Ward, B-90, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.)
68. Dwarika Jaiswal, S/o Late Ramprasad Jaiswal, Aged About 72 Years,
R/o Lane No. 25, Vivekanand Ward, Ward No. 10, Mungeli (C.G.)
69. Dr. Prem Kumar Verma, S/o Devkinandan Verma, Aged About 85 Years,
R/o Main Road Pulpara, Sardar Patel Ward Mungeli (C.G.)
70. Radheshyam Sharma, S/o Late Keshav Prasad Sharma, Aged About 79
Years, R/o 62, Ward No. 7, Shastri Chowk, Railway Station Road
Akaltara, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
71. Charan Singh Agrawal, S/o Late Amilal Agrawal, Aged About 78 Years,
R/o Ward No. 16 Main Road Line, Shivanandpur, Bishrampur,
Shivanandpur alias Omkarbahara, Surajpur (C.G.)
72. Sharda Prasad Sharma, S/o Durga Prasad Sharma, Aged About 87
Years, R/o 26/714, Baniyapara, Ward No. 61, Purani Basti,
Bindranavagarh Raiput, District- Raipur (C.G.)
73. Satrupa Kahyap, W/o Late Bhagwat Prasad, Aged About 69 Years, R/o
Ghivra, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
74. Ashok Shesh, S/o Ganpat Rao Shesh, Aged About 73 Years, R/o House
No. 1/07, Guru Teg Bhadur Nagar, Newpurena, Purenaamlidih,
Ravigram Raipur (C.G.)
75. Amita Jaiswal, W/o Late Kiran Kishor Jaiswal, Aged About 61 Years, R/o
325, Pt. Dindayal Upadhyay Ward, Ajad Chowk, Jagdalpur, District-
Bastar (C.G.)
76. Vijaya Deshpande, W/o Late Vasant Deshpande, Aged About 79 Years,
R/o MD-40, Housing Board Colony Kota, Ravishankar University Raipur
(C.G.)
77. Hridaynarayan Nirvani, S/o Baladas Nirvani, Aged About 60 Years, R/o
Nirvanigali Ward No. 6, District- Bemetara (C.G.)
78. Vishwanath Ram, S/o Dokhar Ram Aged About 69 Years, R/o 03 Infront
of Aara Mill Gada Katta, Kunkuri, Ward No. 1 Jashpur (C.G.)
79. Mewa Bai Sahu, W/o Late Tijau Ram Sahu, Aged About 75 Years, R/o
Jawalpur, Janjgir-Champa, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Principal Secretary, Mantralay,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Secretary General Administrative Department Mahanadi Bhawan,
Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)
3. The Collector, District- Jashpur (C.G.)
4. The Collector, District- Durg (C.G.)
5. The Collector, District- Raipur (C.G.)
6. The Collector, District- Raigarh (C.G.)
7. The Collector, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
8. The Collector, District- Kabirdham (C.G.)
9. The Collector, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
10. The Collector, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
11. The Collector, District- Bastar (C.G.)
12. The Collector, District- Mahasamund (C.G.)
13. The Collector, District- Kawardha (C.G.)
14. The Collector, District- Dhamtari (C.G.)
15. The Collector, District- Surajpur (C.G.)
16. The Collector, District Mungeli (C.G.)
17. The Collector, District- Ambikapur (C.G.)
---- Respondents
and
WA No. 416 of 2021
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Principal Secretary, Mantralaya,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Secretary, General Administrative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
3. The Collector, District- Raipur (C.G.)
---- Appellants
Versus
Chandrashekhar Alias Malu Ram Sharma, S/o Late Shri Ram Kumar
Sharma, Aged About 80 Years, R/o Near Subhash Chowk, Neora, Tilda
Neora, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
---- Respondent
Mr. Satish Chandra Verma, : In WA Nos. 209, 210, 221, 223, 224,
Advocate General alongwith Mr. 226, 229, 244, 289, 313, 320, 325, 328,
Jitendra Pali, Deputy Advocate 343, 346, 357, 358, 361, 362, 364, 366,
General as well as Mr. Siddharth 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 373, 376,
Dubey, Deputy Government 391, 392, 393, 395, 396, 401, 402, 403,
Advocate for the State/appellants 404, 405, 406 & 416 of 2021 as well as
for respondents in WPC Nos. 1580, 83,
2041, 2474 & 4805 of 2021.
Mr. Mahendra Dubey, counsel for : In WPC Nos. 83 & 2474 of 2021
the appellants
Mr. Upendra Nath Awasthy, Senior : In WA Nos. 209, 221, 224, 226, 229,
counsel alongwith Ms. Supriya 289, 325, 328, 346, 357, 358, 361, 364,
Upasne, counsel for the 370, 372, 373, 376, 391, 395, 396, 401,
respondents 404, 405, 406 & 416 of 2021 and for the
petitioners in WPC Nos. 1580, 2041 &
4805 of 2021.
Mr. Amiya Kant Tiwari, counsel for : In WA No. 210 of 2021
the respondent
Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, counsel : In WA Nos. 223 & 371 of 2021.
for the respondent
Mr. Abhishek Saraf, counsel for : In WA Nos. 244, 313, 362, 366, 369,
the respondent 392 & 402 of 2021.
Mr. Anurag Jha, counsel for the : In WA No. 320 of 2021.
respondent
Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandra, : In WA Nos. 343 & 367 of 2021.
counsel for the respondents
Mr. Rakesh Pandey, counsel for : In WA No. 393 of 2021.
the respondent
Mr. Bharat Gulbani & Mr. Galib : In WA Nos. 368 & 403 of 2021.
Dwivedi, counsel for the
respondent
Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, counsel for : In WA No. 368 of 2021, WPC Nos. 83 &
the respondent - Accountant 2474 of 2021.
General
Date of Hearing : 06.12.2021
Date of Judgment : 25.01.2022
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Narendra Kumar Vyas, Judge
C.A.V. Judgment / Order
Per Narendra Kumar Vyas, Judge
1. This batch of writ appeals are preferred against the order dated
26.05.2020, passed in WPC No.152 of 2020 and the order dated
04.12.2020 passed in Review Petition No.146 of 2020 and other
connected cases.
2. In WPC Nos. 1580 of 2021, 2041 of 2021 and 4805 of 2021,
challenge is mounted to the Notifications dated 23.01.2020 and
29.07.2020, whereas, in WPC Nos. 83 of 2021 and 2474 of 2021,
challenge is made only to the Notification dated 29.07.2020.
3. The State Government had framed rules styled as "Loknayak
Jaiprakash Narayan (MISA/D.I.R. Rajnaitik Ya Samajik Karno Se
Nirudha Vyakti) Samman Nidhi Niyam, 2008" (for short, 'Niyam, 2008')
under which monetary allowance is granted to the persons who had
undergone detention during the emergency period of 1975 - 1977.
4. While benefit of the aforesaid Niyam, 2008 was being granted
ever since the Niyam, 2008 was brought into force, the State/respondents
stopped release of allowance from January, 2019 onwards in view of an
order dated 28.01.2019 issued by the General Administration
Department, Government of Chhattisgarh.
5. Such stoppage of allowance gave rise to filing of a number of
writ petitions. Challenge therein, primarily, was to the aforesaid order
dated 28.01.2019 and in few cases, appropriate directions were sought
for to the respondents to make payment of monetary allowance which
were paid till January, 2019.
6. While the writ petitions were pending disposal, by Notification
dated 23.01.2020, the State Government repealed the Niyam, 2008 with
effect from 23.01.2020. However, the said Notification dated 23.01.2020
was not assailed either by amending the writ petitions or by
independently assailing the same before disposal of the writ petitions, by
order dated 26.05.2020.
7. The learned Single Judge, in that view of the matter, confined
adjudication of the proceedings only to the extent as to whether the
respondents in the writ petitions could have stopped the payment of
allowance by order dated 28.01.2019 and as to whether the petitioners
would be entitled to the allowance from the date it has been stopped till
the Niyam, 2008 was repealed by Notification dated 23.01.2020.
8. The learned Single Judge, on perusal of the order dated
28.01.2019, opined that the said order did not intend to stop the payment
to the 'democratic fighters', but the same was issued to make the process
of payment of 'Samman Nidhi ' in the financial year more effective,
smooth and transparent and it is with that objective, the said order was
passed.
9. On consideration of the materials on record, the learned Single
Judge held that no scrutiny or further enquiry was made with regard to
any of the petitioners and on the contrary, the Niyam, 2008 was repealed
by Notification dated 23.01.2020. The learned Single Judge held that the
order dated 28.01.2019 by which the State Government decided to
withhold the monthly pension to the writ petitioners is not sustainable in
law and accordingly, directed that payments for the period from January,
2019 to 23.01.2020 be made to each of the petitioners within a period of
90 days from the date of receipt of the order.
10. Initially, against the said order dated 26.05.2020 in respect of
WPC No. 88 of 2020, a writ appeal was filed being W.A. No. 333 of 2020.
The said writ appeal was disposed of on 24.08.2020 on permission being
sought to withdraw the appeal by the learned Advocate General without
prejudice to the rights and contentions of the Government to initiate
appropriate proceedings before the learned Single Judge.
11. A perusal of the order dated 24.08.2020 would go to show that
the contentions were advanced by the learned Advocate General that a
clarificatory order was issued on 29.07.2020 providing that the Niyam,
2008 stood repealed from January, 2019 itself. Pursuant to withdrawal of
the writ appeal, Review Petition No. 146 of 2020 was preferred, which
came to be dismissed by order dated 04.12.2020.
12. As noted earlier, these Notifications dated 23.01.2020 and
29.07.2020 are the subject matters of challenge in WPC Nos. 1580 of
2021, 2041 of 2021 and 4805 of 2021 and Notification dated 29.07.2020
is challenged in WPC Nos. 83 of 2021 and 2474 of 2021.
13. Mr. Satish Chandra Verma, learned Advocate General submitted
that the Niyam, 2008 was not in accordance with Maintenance of Internal
Security Act, 1971 (for short, 'MISA Act, 1971') or Defence of India Act,
1971 and accordingly, the payment of allowance was put on hold till final
decision was taken and thereafter on due consideration, Niyam, 2008
had been repealed. It is submitted that it is the sole discretion of the State
Government to run any scheme or to stop the same and the writ
petitioners do not have any statutory right to claim allowance. Learned
Advocate General submits that the Notification dated 29.07.2020 was
merely a clarificatory notification making it clear that Niyam, 2008 would
stand repealed with effect from January, 2019, when it was decided to
stop payment of allowance to the writ petitioners. Learned Advocate
General submits that the Niyam, 2008 was made by way of executive
instructions and on evaluation of the entire policy, it was found that there
was no public interest involved in making the Niyam, 2008 and therefore,
decision was taken to repeal the same. Learned Advocate General
submits that payment of allowance to the writ petitioners for the reason of
being detained under MISA Act, 1971 or Defence of India Act, 1971
amounts to frustrating the purpose and purport of the aforesaid statues.
That apart, MISA Act, 1971 does not contain any provision for framing rules
such as the Niyam, 2008. It is contended that any benefit granted on the
strength of the executive instruction can be taken away by issuing another
executive instruction, which is precisely what was done in the instant case
and the learned Single Judge failed to consider these aspects of the matter.
In substance, it is submitted that there was no public interest involved in
framing the Niyam, 2008 and as grant of such allowance had caused
financial burden to the State Government, the State Government decided to
repeal the Niyam, 2008.
14. It is further contended that on going through the Niyam, 2008, it is
clear that there is no such public interest involved in making the Niyam,
2008. It has been framed to give benefit to a particular class ignoring the
interest of public at large and therefore, the State authorities had no option
but to stop the benefits under aforesaid policy vide order dated 28.01.2019
and thereafter, it has been cancelled vide Notification dated 23.01.2020.
Later on, repeal was given retrospective effect from January, 2019 vide
Notification dated 29.07.2020. The benefits which have been given through
executive instruction to the writ petitioners can be stopped by the State
Government at any time by way of another executive instructions, which
was done by the State under its powers. Thus, the writ petitioners cannot
challenge the powers and authority of the State Government.
15. Learned Advocate General, while justifying the action on the part of
the State to repeal the Niyam, 2008, submits that the scheme was in
violation of the MISA Act, 1971 and since the State has legislative power
to enact the Samman Nidhi, therefore, the repealing of the Niyam, 2008 is
well within the competence of the State. It is further contended that the
MISA Act, 1971 was enacted by the Central Government to provide for
detention in certain cases for the purpose of maintenance of internal
security and matters connected therewith.
16. Learned Advocate General, while praying for quashing of the order
passed in batch of writ petitions, refers to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & another v. Status
Spinning Mills Limited & another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 353, and
submits that a clarificatory order can be given retrospective effect as it can
throw light on substantive provision by principle of contermporanea
expositio, with particular reference to paragraph 29 of the judgment wherein
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"29. The clarification issued by the State during
pendency of the appeals should have, therefore, been
considered by the High Court in its proper perspective.
If it is clarificatory in nature, it could be given a
retrospective operation. Such a question, however,
should have been posed and answered. Furthermore,
the letter dated 1.08.1997 was issued as some
confusion arose. When a subordinate legislation is
made by the State Government, it must be done in
terms of the constitutional provision. An executive
order is also issued keeping in view the rules and
executive business. It may not have the force of law
but the same may come within the purview of the well-
known principle of contemporaneous expositio. Rules
of executive construction are also relevant."
17. He further submits that it is well within the competence of the
Government to issue the clarificatory notification and at the same time,
there is no vested right of the petitioners to claim benefit of the Niyam,
2008, which is even evident from the pleadings and from Notification
dated 23.01.2020 by which the Niyam, 2008 has been repealed.
18. The Learned Advocate General refers to the judgment rendered
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Reepak Kansal v. Union of India &
others, [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 554 of 2021 with 539 of 2021, decided on
30.06.2021)], reported in AIR 2021 SC 3198, whereby the scope of
judicial review with respect to the policy matters have been examined.
19. Learned Advocate General for the State submits that the
subsequent Notification dated 29.07.2020 would not amount to nullifying
the judgment passed by learned Single Judge as it is a clarificatory order
which is permissible under the law and in support thereof, he refers to the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cheviti Venkanna
Yadav v. State of Telangana & other, reported in (2017) 1 SCC 283.
20. The learned Advocate General also submits that since the
Niyam, 2008 has already been repealed, the learned Single Judge should
not have granted the benefit to the writ petitioners in the writ petitions out
of which the appeals arise from January, 2019 and therefore, the writ
appeals filed by the State deserve to be allowed, and the writ petitions
filed by the petitioners are liable to be dismissed.
21. Mr. Upendra Nath Awasthy, learned senior counsel, who has led
the arguments on behalf of the recipients of 'Samman Nidhi', has
supported the reasoning assigned by the learned Single Judge in
directing payment for the period from January, 2019 to 23.01.2020. It is
submitted that 'Samman Nidhi' was withheld by the State Government
without any reasonable justification as the payments were made after due
verification by the competent committee consisting of In-charge Minister
(Chairman), District Magistrate (Member Secretary), Superintendent of
Police (Member) & Jail Superintendent (Member) and as such, the same
was arbitrary and colourable exercise of power. Though ostensible
reason for issuing the order dated 28.01.2019 was for undertaking an
exercise for effective and smooth disbursement of allowance, no further
action was taken such as scrutinizing or streamlining the process and
later on Niyam, 2008 was repealed by Notification dated 23.01.2020. It is
submitted that Notification dated 29.07.2020, by which repeal of the
Niyam, 2008 was given retrospective effect from 28.01.2019, is not
sustainable in law and the said Notification was issued only to frustrate
the order of this Court and on political considerations, without there being
any reasonable basis for nullifying the Niyam, 2008.
22. It has been further contended by Mr. Awasthy, learned senior
counsel and Mr. Mahendra Dubey, learned counsel for the writ petitioners
that the order dated 23.01.2020 has been issued after passing of the
interim order by this Court on 14.01.2020 by which this Court has
directed for payment of Samman Nidhi. Thereafter, the order dated
29.07.2020 was issued, and therefore, it is crystal clear that the order has
been issued to nullify the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It
has been further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that
the State has not placed any material on record before this Court as to
what deliberation and discussion have been carried out by the State to
cancel the Niyam, 2008 and benefit granted to the petitioners have been
withdrawn without any rhyme or reason. It is incumbent on the part of the
State to place on record the decision making process to cancel the
Niyam, 2008 vide its Notification dated 23.01.2020 and subsequent
Notification dated 29.07.2020 giving retrospective effect from January,
2019. In absence of any material being placed on record by the State, it
may be held that without deliberation and with malafide intention, the
impugned Notifications have been issued, he submits.
23. Mr. Awasthy, learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance
upon the judgments rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Govt. of
India v. George Philip, reported in AIR 2007 SC 705 and the judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur
Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat & others, reported in AIR 2006 SC 212.
He also refers to the judgment passed by Allahabad High Court, Lucknow
Bench in Uttar Pradesh Loktantra Rakshak Senani Kalyan Samiti
Sitapur v. State of Uttar Pradesh, passed in Writ Petitions No. 11590 of
2010 connected with Nos. 4200 (MB) of 2010 and 4205 (MB) of 2010, the
judgment rendered by High Court of Rajasthan in Shanti Lal Jain &
another v. State of Rajasthan & another, passed in D.B. Civil Writ
Petition (P.I.L.) No. 5785/2015 and the judgment rendered by High Court
of Patna in Ravishankar Kumar Akela v. State of Bihar passed in CWJ
No. 7472 of 2009 and prays for dismissal of the writ appeals.
24. The other learned counsel had adopted the arguments of Mr.
Upendra Nath Awasthy.
25. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel
for the parties and have perused the materials placed on record.
26. Taking note of the aforesaid factual matrix, the points emerged
for determination by this Court are: (i) Whether by the subsequent
notification dated 29.07.2020 Niyam, 2008 could have repealed
retrospectively from January, 2019 and whether the same would amount
to nullifying the order passed by learned Single Judge dated 26.05.2020?
(ii) Whether the State was justified in repealing the Niyam, 2008 without
assigning any reason and whether this Court can interfere in policy
matter?
27. Before adverting to the points raised in the appeal as well as in
the writ petition, it is necessary for this Court to extract the Gazette
notifications dated 23.01.2020 & 29.07.2020, which are extracted below:-
"vf/klwp uk fnukad 23-01-2020& Øekad ,Q
7&[email protected]@1&7-& jkT; ljdkj] ,rn~ }kjk] lela[;d
vf/klwpuk fnukad 5 vxLr] 2008 }kjk Hkkjr esa ?kksf"kr
vkikrdky fnukad 25 twu] 1975 ls 31 ekpZ] 1977 dh
dkykof/k ds nkSjku NRrhlx<+ ds jktuSfrd ;k lkekftd
dkj.kksa ls [email protected] ds v/khu fu:) O;fDr;ksa dks
lgk;rk nsus ds fy;s cuk;s x;s ^^yksduk;d t;izdk'k
ukjk;.k ¼[email protected] jktuSfrd ;k lkekftd dkj.kksa
ls fu:) O;fDr½ lEeku fuf/k fu;e] 2008** dks fujflr
djrk gSA"
"vf/klwp uk fnukad 29-07-2020& Øekad ,Q
7&[email protected]@1&7-& jkT; ljdkj] ,rn~ }kjk] ^^yksduk;d
t;izdk'k ukjk;.k ¼[email protected] jktuSfrd ;k
lkekftd dkj.kksa ls fu:) O;fDr½ lEeku fuf/k fu;e] 2008**
dks lela[;d vf/klwpuk fnukad 23&01&2020 ds }kjk
fujflr fd;k x;k Fkk jkT; ljdkj] ,rn~ }kjk] mDr fujlu
fnukad dks la'kksf/kr djrs gq,] yksduk;d t;izdk'k ukjk;.k
¼[email protected] jktuSfrd ;k lkekftd dkj.kksa ls fu:)
O;fDr½ lEeku fuf/k fu;e] 2008** dks tuojh] 2019 ls
fujflr djrk gSA"
28. The record would show that earlier, the Samman Nidhi was
withheld subject to scrutiny or verification with regard to entitlement of the
candidate, but the State has not placed any material on record objecting
the entitlement of writ petitioners to get Samman Nidhi, but it has been
cancelled during pendency of the writ petitions vide order dated
23.01.2020 and thereafter, vide Notification dated 29.07.2020 has
repealed the Niyam, 2008. This would clearly establish that the
subsequent Notification dated 29.07.2020 is nothing but an attempt to
nullify the order passed by learned Single Judge dated 26.05.2020, which
was issued in favour of the writ petitioners and therefore, the Notification
dated 29.07.2020 cannot remove the defects pointed out by the learned
Single Judge in its judgment. By the impugned Notification, the appellants
have attempted to discard the judgment passed by learned Single Judge
and to defeat the right which has accrued to the writ petitioners on the
basis of the order of learned Single Judge. By the impugned Notification,
the State has taken away either directly or indirectly the right accrued in
favour of the writ petitioners, which is nothing but amounting to nullify the
order of learned Single Judge. It is a well-settled legal position that the
legislature cannot declare any decision of a Court of law to be void or of
no effect. It is also well-settled that it can remove the defects of law
pointed out by the Court and Court decision must always be binding
unless the condition on which it is based is so fundamentally altered that
the decision could not be given effect to in such an altered circumstance.
29. Perusal of the judgment passed by learned Single Judge dated
26.05.2020 goes to show that the learned Single Judge, in paragraph 18
of the judgment has observed that a plain reading of the order dated
28.01.2019 would reveal that the intention of the State Government was
never to stop the payment being made to the writ petitioners and that it
intended to get the scheme and the claimants scrutinized so as to ensure
more effective and transparent implementation and also to ensure that
the amount under the said scheme does not fall in the hands of persons,
who are not otherwise entitled for the same under the rules. The
appellants vide Notification dated 29.07.2020 have given retrospective
effect to Notification dated 23.01.2020 by which the scheme has been
cancelled w.e.f. January, 2019. This clearly amounts to nullifying the
order of the learned Single Judge passed on 26.05.2020 and the same
does not amount to clarification of the order dated 23.01.2020.
30. It is a well-settled proposition of law that the clarification means
to clarify the things, if there is any ambiguity. In the Notification dated
23.01.2020, there was no ambiguity and it is well-settled interpretation of
statutes that notification will be given effect to from the date it is made
effective. In the present case, Notification was issued on 23.01.2020.
Therefore, it will be effective from 23.01.2020. Thus, by subsequent
Notification dated 29.07.2020, it has been given retrospective effect from
28.01.2019, which amounts to nullifying the order passed by learned
Single Judge of this Court. Therefore, giving retrospectivity by the
Notification dated 29.07.2020 is against the judgment rendered by this
Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Medical Council of India v. State
of Kerala & others, reported in (2019) 13 SCC 185 , observed as under:-
"27. The Court has also observed in Cauvery Water
Disputes Tribunal, In re [(1993) Supp. (1) SCC 96 (2)]
(supra) that if the exercise of the power of judicial
review can be set at naught by the State Government
by overriding the decision given against it, it would
sound the death knell of the rule of law. The rule of law
would be meaningless as it would be open to the State
Government to defy the law and yet get away with it.
126.5. The doctrine of separation of powers
applies to the final judgments of the courts. The
legislature cannot declare any decision of a court
of law to be void or of no effect. It can, however,
pass an amending Act to remedy the defects
pointed out by a court of law or on coming to
know of it aliunde. In other words, a court's
decision must always bind unless the conditions
on which it is based are so fundamentally altered
that the decision could not have been given in the
altered circumstances.
126.6. If the legislature has the power over the
subject-matter and competence to make a
validating law, it can at any time make such a
validating law and make it retrospective. The
validity of a validating law, therefore, depends
upon whether the legislature possesses the
competence which it claims over the subject-
matter and whether in making the validation law it
removes the defect which the courts had found in
the existing law.
126.7. The law enacted by the legislature may
apparently seem to be within its competence but
yet in substance, if it is shown as an attempt to
interfere with the judicial process, such law may
be invalidated being in breach of doctrine of
separation of powers. In such situation, the legal
effect of the law on a judgment or a judicial
proceeding must be examined closely, having
regard to legislative prescription or direction. The
questions to be asked are:
(i) Does the legislative prescription or
legislative direction interfere with the judicial
functions?
(ii) Is the legislation targeted at the decided
case or whether impugned law requires its
application to a case already finally decided?
(iii) What are the terms of law; the issues
with which it deals and the nature of the
judgment that has attained finality? If the
answer to Questions (i) and (ii) is in the
affirmative and the consideration of aspects
noted in Question (iii) sufficiently establishes
that the impugned law interferes with the
judicial functions, the Court may declare the
law unconstitutional."
43. It is also apparent that what the State Government
has done by way of impugned Ordinance is not only
impermissible and beyond legislative competence it
also has the effect of perpetuating illegality and
arbitrariness committed by the colleges in question by
not following the mandate of law laid down by the High
Court as affirmed by this Court. An effort has been
made to cover up the arbitrariness and illegality in an
illegal and impermissible manner for which the State
Government had no competence. The provisions made
in the Ordinance are otherwise also quite illegal and
arbitrary besides in violation of the doctrine of
separation of powers enshrined under Article 50 of the
Constitution of India.
31. From the above stated legal proposition and considering the
facts of the case, it is quite clear that the Gazette Notification dated
29.07.2020 is not clarificatory to the earlier Notification dated 23.01.2020,
but an annulment of judgment passed by the Single Bench of this Court
on 26.05.2020, which is not permissible in law and accordingly, the
Notification dated 29.07.2020 is liable to be and is hereby quashed.
Point No. (ii)
32. It is not in dispute that the State has framed the Niyam, 2008
exercising the powers conferred under Article 162 of the Constitution of
India and there is no provision under the law to grant monetary benefit to
the writ petitioners, who have suffered during the emergency for the
period from 1975 to 1977. However, the State, while repealing the
Samman Nidhi, has not placed any material before this Court to show
that before taking any final decision, there was any deliberation or
discussion, though it is a policy decision of the State Government.
33. The judgments cited by Mr. Awasthy, learned senior counsel for
the petitioners are not applicable to the facts of the present case as in
Uttar Pradesh Loktantra Rakshak Senani Kalyan Samiti Sitapur
(supra), the benefit was denied by wrong interpretation of the rules and
therefore, the Division Bench quashed the order and directed to grant
consequential benefits. The judgment cited in Shanti Lal Jain (supra), is
also not applicable as in that case, PIL was filed challenging granting of
benefit to the persons who have suffered during the period of emergency.
Therefore, the Division Bench held that it is a policy decision of the State
to grant benefit to them. But in the present case, the whole scheme has
been cancelled. Therefore, the aforesaid judgment cited by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable from the facts of the present
case.
34. In Ravishankar Kumar Akela (supra), the scheme was
challenged by the petitioner and the Division Bench, after appreciating
the rules, held that it is a policy decision of the Government and
accordingly, dismissed the PIL, whereas in the present case, the State
has cancelled the Niyam, 2008 itself. Therefore, this Court has to
examine the validity of the decision taken by the State and as such, the
judgment cited by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners is not
applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
35. The State Government has not placed on record for
consideration of this Court before repealing as to whether there was any
deliberation or discussion for repealing Niyam, 2008 so as to enable the
Court to examine the decision making process of the State. In absence of
any material, this Court can very well take note of the fact that the
decision making process suffers from non-consideration of relevant
material or they have considered the materials which were irrelevant.
This Court can definitely annul the decision taken by the State and can
very well direct the State to take a fresh decision after considering the
material or relevant facts for reaching a final conclusion.
36. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Hochtief Gammon v. State
of Orissa & others, reported in (1975) 2 SCC 649, has held as under:-
"13. The Executive have to reach their decisions by
taking into account relevant considerations. They
should not refuse to consider relevant matter nor
should they take into account wholly irrelevant or
extraneous considerations. They should not misdirect
themselves on a point of law. Only such a decision
will be lawful. The Courts have power to see that the
Executive acts lawfully. It is no answer to the exercise
of that power to say that the Executive acted bone fide
nor that they have bestowed painstaking
consideration. They cannot avoid scrutiny by courts
by failing to give reason. If they give reasons and they
are not good reasons, the court can direct them to
reconsider the matter in the light of relevant matters
though the propriety, adequacy or satisfactory
character of these reasons may not be open to
judicial scrutiny. Even if the Executive considers it
inexpedient to exercise their powers they should state
their reasons and there must be material to show that
they have considered all the relevant facts."
37. It is well-settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Court
cannot interfere with the policy decision but can certainly interfere with
the decision making process, if the Court finds that there is no material or
irrelevant material has been considered by the Government while taking
decision. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. & another v.
Johri Mal, reported in (2004) 4 SCC 714, has held as under:-
"29. In Wade's Administrative Law, 8th edition at pages
33-35, it is stated:
"Review, Legality and discretion
The system of judicial review is radically different from
the system of appeals. When hearing an appeal the
court is concerned with the merits of a decision: is it
correct? When subjecting some administrative act or
order to judicial review, the court is concerned with its
legality: is it within the limits of the powers granted? On
an appeal the question is 'right or wrong?' On review
the question is 'lawful or unlawful?' Rights of appeal
are always statutory. Judicial review, on the other
hand, is the exercise of the court's inherent power to
determine whether action is lawful or not and to award
suitable relief. For this no statutory authority is
necessary: the court is simply performing its ordinary
functions in order to enforce the law. The basis of
judicial review, therefore, is common law. This is none
the less true because nearly all cases in administrative
law arise under some Act of Parliament. Where the
Court quashes an order made by a minister under
some Act, it typically uses its common law power to
declare that the Act did not entitle the minister to do
what he did and that he was in some way exceeding or
abusing his powers.
Judicial review thus is a fundamental
mechanism for keeping public authorities within due
bounds and for upholding the rule of law. Instead of
substituting its own decision for that of some other
body, as happens when on appeal, the court on review
is concerned only with the question whether the act or
order under attack should be allowed to stand or not. If
the Home Secretary revokes a television licence
unlawfully, the court may simply declare that the
revocation is null and void. Should the case be one
involving breach of duty rather than excess of power,
the question will be whether the public authority should
be ordered to make good a default. Refusal to issue a
television licence to someone entitled to have one
would be remedied by an order of the court requiring
the issue of the licence. If administrative action is in
excess of power (ultra vires), the court has only to
quash it or declare it unlawful (these are in effect the
same thing) and then no one need pay any attention to
it. The minister or tribunal or other authority has in law
done nothing, and must make a fresh decision."
30. It is well-settled that while exercising the power of
judicial review the Court is more concerned with the
decision making process than the merit of the decision
itself. In doing so, it is often argued by the defender of
an impugned decision that the Court is not competent
to exercise its power when there are serious disputed
questions of facts; when the decision of the Tribunal or
the decision of the fact finding body or the arbitrator is
given finality by the statute which governs a given
situation or which, by nature of the activity the decision
maker's opinion on facts is final. But while examining
and scrutinizing the decision making process it
becomes inevitable to also appreciate the facts of a
given case as otherwise the decision cannot be tested
under the grounds of illegality, irrationality or
procedural impropriety. How far the court of judicial
review can re-appreciate the findings of facts depends
on the ground of judicial review. For example, if a
decision is challenged as irrational, it would be well-
nigh impossible to record a finding whether a decision
is rational or irrational without first evaluating the facts
of the case and coming to a plausible conclusion and
then testing the decision of the authority on the touch-
stone of the tests laid down by the Court with special
reference to a given case. This position is well settled
in Indian administrative law. Therefore, to a limited
extent of scrutinizing the decision making process, it is
always open to the Court to review the evaluation of
facts by the decision-maker."
38. Thus, this Court can very well reach to a conclusion that the
action of the State Government while issuing Notification dated
23.01.2020 (Annexure P/1) and subsequent Notification dated
29.07.2020 (Annexure P/2) suffers from arbitrariness and without any
consideration. Therefore, the Notification dated 23.01.2020 (Annexure
A/1) and subsequent Notification dated 29.07.2020 (Annexure A/2) are
liable to be and are hereby set aside. However, the State is at liberty to
take a fresh decision in accordance with law after considering the
materials which are relevant for just decision to decide whether the State
intends to continue with the Niyam, 2008 or not.
39. In view of the above discussions, we are of the considered
opinion that the Writ Appeals filed by the State are liable to be dismissed
and are accordingly dismissed. Writ Petitions (C) filed by the petitioners
are partly allowed.
40. Since this Court has set-aside the notification dated 23.01.2020
and subsequent notification dated 29.07.2020, the State Government is
directed to continue payment of Samman Nidhi till a decision is taken in
accordance with law as to whether the State intends to continue with
Niyam, 2008 or not.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Chief Justice Judge
Arun
