RAJA MOHAMMAD AMIR MOHAMMAD KHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER
EmailAppeal: WPMS No. 712 of 2011
Petitioner: RAJA MOHAMMAD AMIR MOHAMMAD KHAN
Respondent: UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER
Apeal: WPMS No. 712 of 2011
Judges: Tarun Agarwala, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 07, 2012
Appearances:
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Chandra Udai Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, present for the petitioner.
Mr. V.B.S. Negi, Asst. Solicitor General, present for the Union of India/respondent nos. 1 & 2.
Mr. S.P. Gupta, learned Advocate General of the State of U.P., assisted by Mr. Yashwant Varma, Chief Standing Counsel, for the State of U.P.
Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Advocate, present for the Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd.
Mr. Chandra Udai Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, present for the petitioner.
Mr. V.B.S. Negi, Asst. Solicitor General, present for the Union of India/respondent nos. 1 & 2.
Mr. S.P. Gupta, learned Advocate General of the State of U.P., assisted by Mr. Yashwant Varma, Chief Standing Counsel, for the State of U.P.
Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Advocate, present for the Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd.
JUDGEMENT:
JUDGEMENT:
This Court has heard the learned Advocate General for the State of U.P. The hearing remains incomplete.
A request was made by the learned Advocate General for the State of U.P. that he has to appear in a matter, which is fixed tomorrow morning in Allahabad High Court and
therefore, prayed for an adjournment. The plea for adjournment has, however, been vehemently opposed by the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner. A request was made that the matter may be heard after a week or so, but looking into the constraint and pressure upon the court coupled with the fact
that the court is not available from 22nd August, 2012 till 14th September, 2012, the matter is being adjourned and shall be heard on 25th September, 2012.
It is made clear that no further adjournment would be granted and whatever issues remained to be addressed that shall be addressed on day to day basis by all the parties. List this case on 25th September, 2012.
During the course of argument, a Supplementary Counter Affidavit-II dated July, 2012, filed by the State of U.P. was relied upon.
The said Supplementary Counter Affidavit-II dated July, 2012, is not on the record. Ms. Beena Pande, learned counsel for the State of U.P. states that it was filed in the Registry on 27th July, 2012.
The Registry is directed to trace it out and place it on record.
During the course of the submission, Ms. Beena Pande, learned counsel for the State of U.P. stated that while filing the counter affidavit, no receipt was given by the Registry. This is a very serious matter.
Henceforth, the Registry is directed not to accept any affidavit unless it is accompanied by a receipt supplied by the Advocate. The affidavit will be accepted and receipt given to the Advocate/Munshi as per the Rules of the Court.
Such instructions shall be carried out by the Registry forthwith.
Let a copy of this order be placed before the Registrar General of this Court within 24 hours for necessary information and action.
*******************
This Court has heard the learned Advocate General for the State of U.P. The hearing remains incomplete.
A request was made by the learned Advocate General for the State of U.P. that he has to appear in a matter, which is fixed tomorrow morning in Allahabad High Court and
therefore, prayed for an adjournment. The plea for adjournment has, however, been vehemently opposed by the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner. A request was made that the matter may be heard after a week or so, but looking into the constraint and pressure upon the court coupled with the fact
that the court is not available from 22nd August, 2012 till 14th September, 2012, the matter is being adjourned and shall be heard on 25th September, 2012.
It is made clear that no further adjournment would be granted and whatever issues remained to be addressed that shall be addressed on day to day basis by all the parties. List this case on 25th September, 2012.
During the course of argument, a Supplementary Counter Affidavit-II dated July, 2012, filed by the State of U.P. was relied upon.
The said Supplementary Counter Affidavit-II dated July, 2012, is not on the record. Ms. Beena Pande, learned counsel for the State of U.P. states that it was filed in the Registry on 27th July, 2012.
The Registry is directed to trace it out and place it on record.
During the course of the submission, Ms. Beena Pande, learned counsel for the State of U.P. stated that while filing the counter affidavit, no receipt was given by the Registry. This is a very serious matter.
Henceforth, the Registry is directed not to accept any affidavit unless it is accompanied by a receipt supplied by the Advocate. The affidavit will be accepted and receipt given to the Advocate/Munshi as per the Rules of the Court.
Such instructions shall be carried out by the Registry forthwith.
Let a copy of this order be placed before the Registrar General of this Court within 24 hours for necessary information and action.
*******************
