Ram Krit Pathak Vs. Kishun Singh and Others

Ram Krit Pathak vs Kishun Singh and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Apr 11, 2011

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/917419

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/917419
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: R.K. Agrawal; Bharati Sapru, JJ.
Decided On: Apr 11, 2011
Case Number: SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 351 of 2011
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

[R.V. Raveendran; A. K. Patnaik] Indian Penal Code Section 452 - House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint -- After investigation, the police filed two challans on 02.02.2006 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ludhiana. After further investigation, the Superintendent of Pol...

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ram Krit Pathak

Advocate Siddharth Khare; Ashok Khare, Advs

Respondent

Kishun Singh and Others

Advocate C.S.C.; Rajeev Mishra; Sumiti Rani Gupta; V.K. Singh, Advs

Excerpt

.....section 173 of the cr.p.c. under which the police submits reports after investigation and after further investigation, section 190 of the cr. p.c. under which the magistrate takes cognizance of an offence upon a police report and section 482 of the cr.p.c. under which the high court exercises its powers to quash the criminal proceedings. report of police officer on completion of investigation. cognizance of offences by magistrate. sub-section (8) of section 173 further provides that where upon further investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall also forward to the magistrate a further report regarding such evidence and the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 173, cr.p.c., shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2). thus, the report under sub-section (2) of section 173 after the initial investigation as well as the further report under sub-section (8) of section 173 after further investigation constitute "police report" and have to be forwarded to the magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence. r.p. kapur moved the punjab high court under section 561-a of the code of criminal procedure for quashing the proceedings initiated by the first information report. .....the present appeal, the grounds taken in the memo of appeal and documents filed along with it.3. sri khare, learned senior counsel submitted that the order dated 29 th march, 2011 has been obtained by the respondent no.1 by concealing the material fact that the applicant and not the petitioner before the writ court was the senior most teacher in d.a.v. narang, inter college, ghooghly, district maharajganj. further, the appellant has not been impleaded as one of the respondents in the array of parties in the writ petition when the writ petitioner had already been impleaded as one of the respondents in the special appeal no.393 of 2011 as early as on 23 rd march, 2011 and also having put his appearance in the special appeal no.2303 of 2011 itself and, therefore, the order impugned having been obtained by concealing the material fact is liable to be set aside.4. sri v.k. singh, learned counsel submitted that even though the appellant may be the senior most lecturer in the college but in view of the order dated 22.09.2010 passed in writ petition no.51743 of 2010 preferred by sri ram krit pathak and the order dated 01.12.2010 passed in the special appeal nos.998 of 2010 and 1615 of 2010 he is not entitled to hold the post of officiating principal of the college and, therefore, the respondent no.1 herein was entitled to continue and act as officiating principal.5. we are not impressed with the submissions made by sri v.k. singh for the simple reason that the impugned order dated 29 th march, 2011 has been obtained by concealing material fact by claiming himself to be a senior most teacher as would be clear from the recital made in the impugned order when as a matter of fact he is the second senior most teacher in the college. we may mention here that sri v.k. singh, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, sri kishun singh has not disputed the fact that sri ram krit pathak is senior to sri kishun singh. he however, relied upon the order dated 22.09.2010 passed by this.....

Full Judgment

1. Order on the Application No.107701 of 2011 The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 29th March, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge along with an application seeking leave to file the appeal as the applicant is being adversely affected by the order dated 29th March, 2011 impugned in the present appeal.

2. The Court has perused the order dated 29th March, 2011 as also the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application and is of the considered opinion that the applicant is being adversely affected by the order dated 29th March, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge and, therefore, the Court grants leave to appeal to the present applicant.

3. The application is allowed.

Court No. - 37

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 351 of 2011

Petitioner :- Ram Krit Pathak

Respondent :- Kishun Singh And Others

Petitioner Counsel :- Siddharth Khare,Ashok Khare

Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Rajeev Mishra,Sumiti Rani Gupta,V.K. Singh

Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal,J.

Hon'ble Bharati Sapru,J.

1. The present special appeal has been filed against the order dated 29.03.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby while staying the operation of the order dated 04.03.2011 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Maharajganj, Sri Kishun Singh presently arrayed as respondent no.1 herein has been permitted to function as the officiating Principal of the institution.

2. We have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sidharth Khare, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri V.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 and have perused the impugned order dated 29th March, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge giving rise to the present appeal, the grounds taken in the memo of appeal and documents filed along with it.

3. Sri Khare, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the order dated 29 th March, 2011 has been obtained by the respondent no.1 by concealing the material fact that the applicant and not the petitioner before the writ Court was the senior most teacher in D.A.V. Narang, Inter College, Ghooghly, District Maharajganj. Further, the appellant has not been impleaded as one of the respondents in the array of parties in the writ petition when the writ petitioner had already been impleaded as one of the respondents in the Special Appeal No.393 of 2011 as early as on 23 rd March, 2011 and also having put his appearance in the Special Appeal No.2303 of 2011 itself and, therefore, the order impugned having been obtained by concealing the material fact is liable to be set aside.

4. Sri V.K. Singh, learned counsel submitted that even though the appellant may be the senior most lecturer in the College but in view of the order dated 22.09.2010 passed in Writ Petition No.51743 of 2010 preferred by Sri Ram Krit Pathak and the order dated 01.12.2010 passed in the Special Appeal Nos.998 of 2010 and 1615 of 2010 he is not entitled to hold the post of officiating Principal of the College and, therefore, the respondent no.1 herein was entitled to continue and act as officiating Principal.

5. We are not impressed with the submissions made by Sri V.K. Singh for the simple reason that the impugned order dated 29 th March, 2011 has been obtained by concealing material fact by claiming himself to be a senior most teacher as would be clear from the recital made in the impugned order when as a matter of fact he is the second senior most teacher in the College. We may mention here that Sri V.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the writ petitioner, Sri Kishun singh has not disputed the fact that Sri Ram Krit Pathak is senior to Sri Kishun Singh. He however, relied upon the order dated 22.09.2010 passed by this Court in his writ petition, which has been affirmed in appeal. Further, the senior most teacher i.e. Ram Krit Pathak not having been impleaded in the array of parties, we are of the considered opinion that the order dated 29 th March, 2011 permitting Sri Kishun Singh to function as officiating Principal of the institution is liable to be vacated as it could not have been passed in the given facts as mentioned herein before. The appeal, therefore, stands allowed. The direction contained in the order dated 29 th March, 2011 permitting Sri Kishun Singh as officiating Principal of the institution is hereby vacated.

6. The appeal succeeds and is allowed.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2011 Same Parties Ram Krit Pathak vs Kishun Singh and Others Same Subject Education Same Judge R.K. Agrawal; Bharati Sapru, JJ.

Education