Pushpendra Singh and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Pushpendra Singh and anr. vs State of U.P. and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Jan 03, 2002

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/491135

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/491135
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Yatindra Singh, J.
Decided On: Jan 03, 2002
Case Number: Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 44946, 44973, 44975, 44801, 44883 and 44885 of 2001 and 55, 137, 141
Subject: Service

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 [C.A. No. 1/1894]. Section 4; [Sushil Harkauli, S.K. Singh & Krishna Murari, JJ] Acquisition of land Held, Court cannot issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the State Authorities to acquire a particular land. Land acquisition is not purely ministerial act to be performed by executive No...

Key legal issue: Service

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Pushpendra Singh and anr.

Respondent

State of U.P. and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: (2002)2UPLBEC426

Excerpt

.....to the court in exercise of that power to invite the attention of the executive to any public purpose and the need for land for meeting that public purpose and to require the executive to take a decision, even a reasoned decision, with regard to the same in accordance with the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a reasonable time frame. however, the power of the court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. - some of them allege that they appeared and were successful yet they were wrongly declared failed in the physical test, hence the present writ petitions......yet they were wrongly declared failed in the physical test, hence the present writ petitions.2. i have heard counsel for the petitioners and standing counsel for the respondents. in view of the shortage of time, the standing counsel after consulting the officials from the police headquarter have suggested a via media. in view of this following directions are given :(i) petitioner may file a representation before the deputy inspector general of police (establishment), police head quarter, allahabad (dig) by 16th january, 2002. this representation may be given personally in the office of dig. the respondent will also issue a receipt for the same. (ii) the petitioners alongwith their representation will also annex a photostat copy of the certified copy of this order; other necessary documents and a self addressed duly stamped envelope. (iii) the dig after taking the decision will inform the petitioners. (iv) the petitioners will be permitted to appear provisionally in the written examination to be held in the zone in which the district from where they had appeared in the preliminary, test falls. the result of the petitioners would be subject to the decision taken by the dig on the representation. (v) this decision may be taken if possible before the interview is held.need less to add in case any representation is allowed the physical test may be taken again.3. with these observations and directions, all the writ petitions are disposed of.

Full Judgment

Yatindra Singh, J.

1. State of U.P. is holding selection for direct appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector and Platoon Commander in PAC. In this selection initially a preliminary examination is held. Selected candidates have to appear in a physical test and those who qualified have to appear in a written examination and then in the interview. The first two stages are admittedly over. The preliminary examination and physical test have already been held. Now written examination is to be held in different zones on 6th January, 2002. According to the petitioners all of them have qualified in the preliminary examination. Some of them allege that they could not appear in the physical test due to the fault of the respondents; some of them allege that they appeared and were successful yet they were wrongly declared failed in the physical test, hence the present writ petitions.

2. I have heard Counsel for the petitioners and Standing Counsel for the respondents. In view of the shortage of time, the Standing Counsel after consulting the officials from the police headquarter have suggested a via media. In view of this following directions are given :

(i) Petitioner may file a representation before the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment), Police Head Quarter, Allahabad (DIG) by 16th January, 2002. this representation may be given personally in the office of DIG. The respondent will also issue a receipt for the same.

(ii) The petitioners alongwith their representation will also annex a Photostat copy of the certified copy of this order; other necessary documents and a self addressed duly stamped envelope.

(iii) The DIG after taking the decision will inform the petitioners.

(iv) The petitioners will be permitted to appear provisionally in the written examination to be held in the zone in which the district from where they had appeared in the preliminary, test falls. The result of the petitioners would be subject to the decision taken by the DIG on the representation.

(v) This decision may be taken if possible before the interview is held.

Need less to add in case any representation is allowed the physical test may be taken again.

3. With these observations and directions, all the writ petitions are disposed of.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2002 Same Parties Pushpendra Singh and anr. vs State of U.P. and ors. Same Subject Service Same Judge Yatindra Singh, J.

Service