Smt. Rekha Raghuvanshi vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 25 March, 2026

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
                                        AND
         HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PANKAJ PUROHIT


                            25TH MARCH, 2026


                Criminal Appeal No. 285 of 2023



Smt. Rekha Raghuvanshi                                            ...Appellant

                                        Versus

State of Uttarakhand & others.                                ...Respondents


Counsel for the Applicant           :         Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for
                                              the applicant.


Counsel for the State              :          Mr. J.S. Virk, Deputy Advocate General
                                              with Mr. Rakesh Kumar Joshi, Brief
                                              Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.


Counsel for respondent nos.2, 6 & 7 :         Mr. Arun Pratap Shah, learned counsel.




ORDER :

(per Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

Delay Condonation Application (I.A. No. 1 of 2024)

As per office report, there is delay of 151 days in filing the recall application.

2. In the interest of justice, application seeking condonation of delay is allowed. Delay of 151 days in filing the recall application is condoned.

Recall Application (I.A. No. 2 of 2024)

3. Applicant was posted as Legal Remembrancer / Principal Secretary (Law) in Law Department of the State Government when this Court disapproved the manner in which the proposals seeking permission to file appeal were dealt with in Law Department and the applicant was warned to be careful in future vide order dated 13.10.2023.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that order dated 13.10.2023 was challenged before Hon'ble Supreme Court in a SLP, which was disposed of leaving it open to the applicant to pursue his rights and remedies in accordance with law. He submits that this application is filed pursuant to the liberty granted by Hon'ble Supreme Court, or else such application would not be maintainable in a Criminal Appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant raised the following submissions:-

(i) Permission to file appeal in a given case depends on the subjective satisfaction of Law Department and in the case in hand, permission to file appeal against acquittal was refused, as it was a case of circumstantial evidence and two Law Officers, subordinate to the applicant, had concurred in their opinion that filing appeal in that case will be an exercise in futility. He thus submits that the observations made in the order dated 13.10.2023 is uncalled for.

6. The submission made on behalf of the applicant is fallacious. Applicant was asked to be careful in future, as he in his reply stated that he applies mind in a case only when there is difference of opinion amongst his Subordinate Law Officers on the question of filing appeal and if the Joint Secretary (Law) and Additional Secretary (Law) express the same view, then he as Principal Secretary (Law) simply follows the concurring opinion given by his Joint Secretary and Additional Secretary.

7. Since Joint Secretary (Law) and Additional Secretary (Law) are junior level Officers with little or no experience of dealing with cases involving heinous offences and other matter of public importance, therefore, leaving the decision whether to file appeal in a given case to the discretion of junior officers is not warranted, as it erodes the faith of people in system of referring matters for opinion to the Law Department and more often than not, it results in filing of appeal in cases where it is not required and vice versa. While taking decision on the question of filing appeal, Law Department has to take various aspects into consideration, including public interest; merit of the case etc.

8. Having regard to the importance of the work, a very senior judicial officer in the rank of Principal District & Sessions Judge is posted as Principal Secretary (Law)/ Legal Remembrancer, who may apply his mind to the files, which are released to Law Department for opinion/permission. In our order, we

have not made any observation against refusal of permission to file appeal, as it is the prerogative of Law Department. What surprised us is the reply given by the applicant, where he says that he simply facilitates the process of request on the opinion rendered by the officers through whom the file reaches to the Principal Law Secretary. The reply shows that applicant abdicated his power/ responsibility to the subordinate officers in Law Department. A Judicial Officer cannot be expected to take such defence, as was taken by the applicant in his reply.

(ii) Learned counsel for the applicant then submitted that as per practice, whenever a request for filing appeal against acquittal is received from a District Magistrate, critical appreciation of evidence is done by Additional Secretary and Joint Secretary and the Principal Secretary (Law) goes by the opinion given by his subordinate Law Officers on the question of filing appeal. Learned counsel for the applicant referred to an Office Order dated 30.05.2022, issued by the then Principal Secretary (Law) for contending that work is distributed amongst subordinate officers of the Law Department and the opinion/view expressed by them is final, subject to correction, wherever required by Principal Secretary (Law).

9. Perusal of order dated 30.05.2022, however, does not indicate that the decision taken by a subordinate Law Officer would be final on the subject allotted to them. Said order merely indicates that files received in Law Department are to be processed by

subordinate law officers, however, final decision shall be of the Secretary/Principal Secretary (Law). There is nothing on record to show that the power to take final decision was also delegated to Additional Secretary or Joint Secretary serving in the Law Department.

10. The submission made by learned counsel for the applicant that critical appreciation of evidence in a given case is not done by Law Department as Law Department is not sitting as Court of Appeal is correct. However, final decision whether to file appeal in a given case or not, can only be taken by the Secretary/Principal Secretary (Law), although the view expressed by his subordinate law officers may help him in forming an opinion in the matter. Principal Secretary (Law) is meant to deal with legal issues, give opinion and process files to find out whether a given case is fit for filing appeal.

11. Learned counsel for the applicant referred to paragraph no. 3.17 of Legal Remembrancers Manual for contending that Additional Legal Remembrancer, Joint Legal Remembrancer and Deputy Legal Remembrancers are appointed by the State Government for assisting the Legal Remembrancer/ Principal Secretary (Law) and the Legal Remembrancer can withdraw any work entrusted to his subordinate law officers.

12. There cannot be any dispute with the proposition that Additional Legal Remembrancer, Joint Legal Remembrancer, Assistant Legal Remembrancer

etc. are appointed by State Government for rendering assistance to Legal Remembrancer and Legal Remembrancer can distribute work amongst the officers subordinate to him in the Law Department. The expression 'assist' used in Clause-I of paragraph no. 3.17 of Legal Remembrancers Manual cannot be construed as the authority to take final decision in a matter and that expression would mean that Additional Legal Remembrancer, Joint Legal Remembrancer, Assistant Legal Remembrancer are authorized to give their inputs on the file, based on which final decision is to be taken by Principal Secretary (Law). Thus, paragraph no. 3.17 of the Legal Remembrancers Manual cannot be pressed into service for justifying inaction on the part of applicant in not applying mind on the question of filing appeal in the case in hand. The reply given by Principal Secretary (Law) pursuant to order dated 14.9.2023 is extracted below:-

"In this regard it is again most humbly submitted that Principal Law Secretary being the Senior most officer in the Law department facilitates the process of request on the opinion rendered by the officers through whom the file reaches to the Principal Law Secretary. In Law Department all the files of various department are routed through Principal Law Secretary. It is only in cases where there is difference of opinion between Joint law Secretary opinion and Additional law Secretary opinion in that case, the Principal law Secretary can concur with the opinion of either of the officer on particular request and that opinion of Principal Law Secretary becomes final."

13. From the aforesaid reply, it is revealed that Principal Secretary (Law) belittled his position to that of a facilitator who would apply his mind only to cases where there was difference of opinion between Additional Secretary (Law) and Joint Secretary (Law) on the issue of filing appeal. Such state of affairs in an

important public office cannot be permitted to continue, as State Government is an important stakeholder in administration of justice.

14. Grant or refusal of permission to file appeal in a given case is solely within the domain of the Law Department of the State Government, therefore this Court did not make any comment against refusal of permission for filing appeal. We were appalled by the fact that a very senior judicial officer, who is posted as Principal secretary (Law of the State Government is shirking away from his responsibility of taking decision in matters, which are referred to him for opinion/permission. Junior Law Officers can give their inputs on a file, which may help the Principal Secretary (Law) to form an opinion, however, leaving final decision to the subordinate law officers, whenever they concur on a point, is not desirable, as concurring opinion by junior officers may not always be correct, which, however, can be corrected when Principal Secretary (Law) applies his mind to the material on record and also the opinion given by subordinate law officers.

15. Learned counsel for the applicant then submitted that similar practice was being followed in Law Department since last several years and applicant followed the same old practice of leaving the matter for decision to Additional Secretary and Joint Secretary. However, the material on record does not substantiate this contention. Merely because there was distribution of work between subordinate law officers does not

mean that such subordinate law officers had the authority to take final decision on the subjects allotted to them. The documents relied by applicant when seen in the light of paragraph no. 3.17 of the Legal Remembrancers Manual reveal that other law officers are there to help the Legal Remembrancer to form opinion in a given case and the power to take final decision vests only in the Legal Remembrancer, which was never delegated to other law officers.

16. Learned counsel for the applicant then referred to a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh where it is held that superior courts should not criticize Judges serving in District Courts and submits that the order dated 13.10.2023 is unsustainable, as it criticizes a judicial officer.

17. The contention raised by learned counsel for the applicant is fallacious, firstly because this Court has not used intemperate language in the order dated 13.10.2023 and secondly, applicant was not exercising judicial powers as Judge in a Court of law, but, he was acting in Administrative capacity while serving as Legal Remembrancer-cum-Principal Secretary (Law) in Law Department of the State Government. This Court only expressed its dismay and disapproved the manner in which files were being processed in Law Department without application of mind and applicant was simply asked to be careful in future to ensure that working of Law Department is streamlined.

18. Thus, this Court do not find any good ground for recalling the order dated 13.10.2023. The Recall Application is, accordingly, rejected.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 25.03.2026 Navin