w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Shri Madan Mohan Dammamal Trust Society v/s Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi Parishad


Company & Directors' Information:- AKHIL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109JK2000PTC002046

Company & Directors' Information:- AKHIL CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U74900TG2015PTC098902

    Special Appeal No. 1311 of 2002

    Decided On, 17 December 2002

    At, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOSHI
    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. SRIVASTAVA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.P. SINGH

    For the Appearing Parties: Anil Bhushan, P.S. Baghel, Pankaj Mishra, Ranjit Saxena, Advocates.



Judgment Text

S.P. SRIVASTAVA AND M.P. SINGH, J.


(1) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellants. The learned counsel representing the respondent nos. 1 and 2 as well as the learned counsel representing the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, who have put in appearance at this stage, have also been heard.


(2) THIS special appeal is directed against an interlocutory order passed by a learned single Judge.


(3) THE principal submission in support of this appeal, urged by the learned counsel for the appellants is that taking into consideration the nature of the writ petition, it was clearly a public interest litigation and consequently, the writ petition was not cognizable by a learned single judge.


(4) IN this connection, reference has been made to the assertions made in paragraph 35 of the writ petition, a copy of which has been annexed along with the special appeal where the petitioners have asserted that they were espousing the cause of students. It is, however, not disputed that none of the students of the degree college in question claim to be the member of the petitioners' association.


(5) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances as indicated in the writ petition, the writ petition was clearly cognizable by a Division Bench.


(6) IN the aforesaid view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge, taking into consideration the allotment/ distribution of jurisdiction/judicial work made by the hon'ble the Chief Justice, cannot be taken to be within the ambit of the jurisdiction of the learned single Judge. The impugned order is, therefore, not sustainable in law. Further, a perusal of the impugned order indicates that the writ petition was found to be defective. It is, therefore, obvious that the learned single Judge had passed the interlocutory order entertaining a writ petition which was not only defective but also cognizable by a Division Bench.


(7) IN the aforesaid view of the matter, thi

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

s special appeal succeeds in part. The impugned interim order is vacated with a direction that the writ petition along with the application seeking interim relief be now listed for disposal before the appropriate Division Bench.
O R