Full Judgment Text
‘ REPORTABLE’
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3504 OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP (C)No. 13668 of 2015)
OMKAR SINHA & ANR. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
SAHADAT KHAN & ORS. Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3505 OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP (C)No. 13684 of 2015)
J U D G M E N T
K. M. JOSEPH, J.
(1) Leave granted.
(2) Both the appeals raise common questions. We take
civil appeal arising from SLP (C)No. 13668 of 2015 as the
leading case.
(3) Respondent No. 1 was appointed as a Forest Guard on
03.05.1980. He completed his training as Forest Guard in
the year 1987. Appellant No. 1 came to be appointed as
Forest Guard on 15.11.2007. The second appellant was also
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Nidhi Ahuja
Date: 2022.05.12
16:48:34 IST
Reason:
appointed as Forest Guard on the same day. The appellants
were originally part of undivided State of Madhya Pradesh.
1
CA NO. 3504/ 2022 etc.
Upon the enactment of the State Reorganisation Act, 2000, a
new State viz., State of Chhattisgarh was born on
01.11.2000. While the State of Madhya Pradesh was
undivided, State of Madhya Pradesh, on 17.10.1977 issued the
following circular:
“Copy letter No. 13/10474/1977/1/x dated 17.10.77
from the Government of Madhya Pradesh, Department of
Forest, Bhopal to the Principal Forest Conservator,
Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.
Sub: - For giving entry in the Ranger’s Training to
the candidate who stood first in the Forest Guard
Training School without entrance examination as well
as for fixation of height of 163 c.m.
Ref: - Your memo/copy/153/5737 dated 18.7.77.
The State Government grants approval for
keeping the height of 163 cm (one hundred sixty
three c.m.) for the entire forest schools as well as
Forest Guard’s training schools and those Forest
Guard who passes the examination of the Training
schools in first class is granted approval for
sending in the Ranger’s Training session without
entrance examination.
By the name and order of the Governor of
Madhya Pradesh.
Sd/-
(4) Based on a proposed strike, a letter dated 14.05.2009
was issued by the Secretary to the Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests:
CHHATTISGARH ADMINISTRATION
FOREST DEPARTMENT
MANTRALAYA, DAU KALYAN SINGH BHAWAN, RAIPUR
no./f 1-18/2007/10-1/Forest Raipur, Dt.14.05.2009
To
Principal Chief Forest Conservator,
Chhattisgarh, Raipur.
Sub: - Information regarding indefinite strike
2
CA NO. 3504/ 2022 etc.
w.e.f.18.5.2009 for 21 point demands by the
Chhattisgarh Forest Employees Sangh, Raipur (the
provision of promotion to the candidates standing
first in the training of Ranger and Forest Guard.
(demand No. 13).
It has been decided by the State Government
that the proposal regarding grant of 02 additional
increments to the candidates who stood first and 01
additional increment to the candidates who stood
second in the training of Forest Guard/Ranger be
approved and the previous practice be rescinded. In
this regard, please submit the necessary proposal at
the earliest.
Sd/-
(Kaushlendra Singh)
Secretary
Chhattisgarh Administration, Forest Department
No.F-1-18/2008/10-1 Raipur, Dated 05/2009
Copy to:
Shri Faiyaj Ahmad Khan, State President,
Chhattisgarh Forest Employees Sangh, Forest Colony
Complex, Raipur-for information.
Sd/-
Secretary
Chhattisgarh Administration, Forest Department
(5) Next, we must notice communication dated 14.12.2009.
It reads:
OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR
CHHATTISGARH ARANYA BHAWAN, MEDICAL COLLEGE
ROAD, RAIPUR
BRANCH- ADMINISTRATION / NON-GAZETTED
No./Admn.Non-Gazetted.1/2009-7579 Raipur,Dt.14/12/2009
To
Chief Forest Conservator
(Ma. San Vi/Su.Pau.)
Chhattisgarh, Raipur
Sub: -Sending Forest Ranger training to the Forest Guards
stood first in the Forest Guard Training School.
3
CA NO. 3504/ 2022 etc.
Ref.: Your letter No./Ma.Sun.Vi./Su./Pau./1133 dated
09.12.2009
By the letter under reference on the captioned
subject, Shrilal Netam, Forest Guard has been mentioned
for sending in the Forest Ranger Training. It is written
in this regard that by considering on the demand No. 13
out of 21 point demands of the Chhattisgarh Forest
Employees Sangh by the Chhattisgarh Administration,
Forest Department, decision has been taken to grant 02
additional increments to the trainees who stood first in
the Forest Guard/Ranger training and 01 additional
increment to the trainees who stood second in the said
training. Therefore, there is no need to send the
candidate who stood first in the Forest Guard training
for the training of the Rangers. As per direction of the
Chhattisgarh Government, Forest Department, the trainees
who stood first is entitled for only 02 additional
increments. Copy of the letter No.F-1-18/2007/10-1
(part-13) of the Chhattisgarh Administration, Forest
Department; Mantralaya Raipur is enclosed.
Enclosure: - As aforesaid
Sd/- illegible
14.12.09
Chief Forest Conservator (Admn. Non-Gazetted)
Chhattisgarh (Raipur)”
(6) In the meantime, it would appear that appellant No. 1,
who was undergoing training as Forest Guard stood first in
the training. He felt entitled to be selected for training
as Forester, on the basis of the order dated 17.10.1977. A
writ petition came to be filed as WP 45/2010 seeking
direction that the appellant No. 1 be sent for Forester
training. Judgment was rendered on 11.01.2012 noting that
there was some proposal to abolish the practice of sending
the Forest Guard who stood first; noting that this is a
policy matter, a decision was directed to be taken on the
4
CA NO. 3504/ 2022 etc.
said representation.
There was correspondence dated 23.04.2012, which reads
as follows:
GOVERNMENT OF CHHATTISGARH
FOREST DEPARTMENT
DAU KALYAN SINGH BHAWAN, MANTRALAYA, RAIPUR
NO./1266/539/2012/10-1/FOREST RAIPUR Dt. 23.4.2012
To
Principal Chief Forest Conservator,
Chhattisgarh, Raipur
Sub: - WP (C)No. 45/2012 Shri Omkar Sinha, Forest
Guard Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.
Ref: - Your letter No. / Admn. Non-
gazetted.1/Nyaya./1380 dated 02.03.2012.
Kindly peruse the captioned letter under
reference. In this regard it is relevant to mention
that after receipt of the amendment proposal from
the General Administration Department in Three Class
(non-clerical) Forest Service Recruitment Rules the
same has been sent to the Law Department for
vetting/modification. Till the time the new
recruitment rule is not framed and enforced, the
action may kindly be taken as per the existing
recruitment rules.
2. It is relevant to mention that in the case of
Shri Sinha, the Hon’ble High Court vide its order
dated 11.01.2012 has directed to take decision
within 04 months, which shall be expired / lapsed on
11.05.2012.
3. As per direction, in the aforesaid case the
action may be taken according to the existing
recruitment rules.
Sd/-
(M.L. Tamrakar)
Under Secretary
Chhattisgarh Government, Forest Department
5
CA NO. 3504/ 2022 etc.
No./ /539/2012/10-1/Forest Raipur, Dt. / / 2012
Copy to:
Shri Omkar Sinha, Forest Guard, Singpur
Enclave Dhamtari, Dhamtari Forest Division, Dhamtari
for information.
Sd/-
Under Secretary
Chhattisgarh Government, Forest Department
(7) We have referred to correspondence dated 23.04.2012.
Then there is order dated 11.06.2012. It reads:
CHHATTISGARH ADMINISTRATION
FOREST DEPARTMENT
MANTRALAYA, DAU KALYAN SINGH BHAWAN, RAIPUR
No./1783/2900/2012/10-1/Forest Raipur, Dt.11/6/2012
To
Principal Chief Forest Conservator,
Chhattisgarh, Raipur.
Sub: - For immediate recalling of Shri Onkar Sinha,
Forest Guard from the Ranger’s training.
Ref: - Your letter No./Admn./Non-Gazetted/2012/3154,
dated 01.05.2012.
Kindly peruse the captioned letter under
reference.
2. The order No.13/10474/1977/1/X dated
17.10.1977 of the Government of Madhya Pradesh,
Forest Department is hereby revoked.
3. In respect of recalling Shri Onkar Sinha, Forest
Guard from the training of the Ranger, may kindly
take necessary action as per rule.
By the name and order of the Governor of Chhattisgarh
Sd/-
(M.L. Tamrakar)
Under Secretary
6
CA NO. 3504/ 2022 etc.
Government of Chhattisgarh, Forest Department
No. 1784/2900/2012/10-1/Forest Raipur,Dated 11.6.2012
Copy to:
State president, Chhattisgarh Forest Employees
Sangh, Raipur, Head Office, Forest Colony Complex,
Pandri, Raipur for information in reference to his
letter No. 24 dated 02.06.2012.
Sd/-
Under Secretary
Government of Chhattisgarh, Forest Department”
(8) Since the second appellant was not sent for training,
he filed WP 4076 of 2012 in which an order similar to the
order passed in the case of the first appellant came to be
passed on 03.10.2012. After reconsideration of the entire
matter, it is found by order dated 22.1.2013 by Under
Secretary that it was decided to send the appellants for
training and that there was no contempt involved.
(9) The Chief Conservator of Forest sent communication to
the Director on 01.12.2013 asking for list of Forest Guards
who stood first during that period 14.05.2009 till the date
of session.
The first respondent filed WP (S)No. 1100/2013
challenging the orders dated 22.01.2013 and 01.12.2013 on
the basis that circular dated 17.10.1977 stood withdrawn by
circular dated 14.12.2009 and therefore, no Forest Guard
could be sent out of turn for training as Forester after
withdrawal of the circular dated 17.10.1977. In the
meantime, on 17.02.2014, the appellants completed their
7
CA NO. 3504/ 2022 etc.
training as Forester. The learned Single Judge dismissed
the Writ Petition No. 1100 /2013 out of which one appeal
arises and also Writ Petition (S) No. 188/2012 which is the
subject matter of the other appeal. Writ appeals came to be
filed by the aggrieved writ petitioners in both the cases
viz., Writ Appeal No. 1/2015 and Writ Appeal No. 2 /2015.
By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench set aside the
judgment of the learned Single Judge. Findings of the
Division Bench to be noted are as follows:
“14. The State Respondent did not act fairly,
reasonably and responsibly in the matter. A
decision had already been taken at the highest level
of the Government on 14.5.2009. It was understood
in clear terms by the Principal Chief Conservator of
Forest who issued consequential orders on
14.12.2009. The Under Secretary then issued an
order at variance. There is no pleading in the
counter-affidavit of the State that the Secretary
had allowed his own order dated 14.5.2009 to be
recalled much less did the order of the Under
Secretary make any reference to the order of the
Secretary. An advantage was taken of the order of
the Court in Writ Petition (S) 45 of 2012 filed by
the private Respondent to create an aura of fear
that the wrath of the Court would be invited in
contempt jurisdiction rather than to have decided
the representation in accordance with law. The
respondent authorities in the counter affidavit
virtually challenge their own order dated 14.5.2009
which is clearly impermissible in the law. The Sub-
divisional Forest Officer who has sworn the counter
affidavit virtually challenges the order of the
Secretary, Department of Forests of the State
government dated 14.5.2009 which is impermissible as
held in (1988) 3 SCC 570 (Commr. of Commercial Taxes
(Asstt.) v. Dharmendra Trading Co) observing as
follows: -
“5. …… We totally fail to see how an Assistant
Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax
who are functionaries of a State can say that a
concession granted by the State itself was beyond
the powers of the State or how the State can say
8
CA NO. 3504/ 2022 etc.
so either……….”
15. The standards by which the Government will act
has to be very different from the manner in which a
private authority or individual will act. The order
dated 14.5.2009 did not emanate in the void. It was
the result of a proper thought process in view of
certain demands raised by the Forest Workers Union
who had threatened to go on strike. We were
informed at the bar during hearing by the parties
that eventually the strike was called off because of
the assurances given by the Government.
16. It is apparent that this decision was taken
after consultation with the Union or the Government
suo-moto took the decision to avoid the possibility
of any strike. The counter-affidavit confronts the
Court with a conclusion rather than informing that
whether any negotiations were held with the Union or
not. Under what circumstances the decision dated
14.5.2009 was taken. The question that arises for
our consideration is that if the State Government in
the Department of Forest at the highest level gave
assurance to its employees because of which they
called off their strike, was it only a guise by the
officials of the State to fraudulently have the
strike called off without any intention to implement
their decision and assurance given. If that was so,
it was a fraud on the Constitution, impermissible
under Article 14 of the Constitution. Conversely, if
the State took a conscious decision to do away with
the circular dated 17.10.1977 in view of the strike
call given by the Union and thereby prevented the
strike, the State certainly stood to gain an
advantage and is bound to stick by its promise. The
authorities of the State Government cannot vacillate
in decision making according to their convenience
seeking shoulders of the Court when in fact, the
Court never gave them its shoulder. We do not
approve of the conduct of the State authorities in
reading more into the order in Writ Petition (S)No.
45 of 2012 than it actually contained.
17. In (2013) 3 SCC 559 (State of Bihar v. Sunny
Prakash) the challenge was to the direction of the
High Court in a Public Interest Litigation to ensure
that the commitment given by the State Government to
the Bihar State University and College Employees
Federation is honoured and implemented. The strike
was called off following an agreement after the
State Government issued a letter for implementation
9
CA NO. 3504/ 2022 etc.
of the agreement. Later the State government sought
to rescile that it was not a decision taken
according to Rules to Executive business. It was
held as follows:
“22. Inasmuch as all the persons who were
competent to represent were the parties to the
said agreement referred to above and after making
such commitment by the State Government, as
rightly observed by the High Court, we are also
of the view that the same has to be honoured
without any exception. By the impugned order,
the High Court has not only directed the State
Government to implement the commitment given by
it having been reduced into writing on 18-7-2007,
honoured by the State Government itself in
subsequent letters/correspondences but also
directed the Federation to call off the strike
immediately in the interest of the student
community.”
(10) We have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for
the appellants as also the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents/writ petitioners and the learned counsel for the
State.
(11) Learned senior counsel for the appellants would point
out that the High Court was wrong in deciding that by
communication dated 14.05.2009, the Government circular
dated 17.10.1977 was withdrawn. Actually, in law, the
earlier circular made by Governor is withdrawn only on
11.06.2012. He would rely on Bachhittar Singh v. State of
Punjab and Another AIR 1963 SC 395:
“8. What we have now to consider is the effect of the
note recorded by the Revenue Minister of PEPSU upon
the file. We will assume for the purpose of this case
that it is an order. Even so, the question is whether
it can be regarded as the order of the State
Government which alone, as admitted by the appellant,
was competent to hear and decide an appeal from the
10
CA NO. 3504/ 2022 etc.
order of the Revenue Secretary. Article 166(1) of the
Constitution requires that all executive action of
the Government of a State shall be expressed in the
name of the Governor. Clause (2) of Article 166
provides for the authentication of orders and other
instruments made and executed in the name of the
Governor. Clause (3) of that article enables the
Governor to make rules for the more convenient
transaction of the business of the Government and for
the allocation among the Ministers of the said
business. What the appellant calls an order of the
State Government is admittedly not expressed to be in
the name of the Governor. But with that point we
shall deal later. What we must first ascertain is
whether the order of the Revenue Minister is an order
of the State Government i.e. of the Governor. In this
connection we may refer to Rule 25 of the Rules of
Business of the Government of PEPSU which reads thus:
“Except as otherwise provided by any other
Rule, cases shall ordinarily be disposed of by
or under the authority of the Minister in
charge who may by means of standing orders give
such directions as he thinks fit for the
disposal of cases in the Department. Copies of
such standing orders shall be sent to the
Rajpramukh and the Chief Minister.”
According to learned counsel for the appellant his
appeal pertains to the department which was in charge
of the Revenue Minister and, therefore, he could deal
with it. His decision and order would, according to
him, be the decision and order of the State
Government. On behalf of the State reliance was,
however, placed on Rule 34 which required certain
classes of cases to be submitted to the Rajpramukh
and the Chief Minister before the issue of orders.
But it was conceded during the course of the argument
that a case of the kind before us does not fall
within that rule. No other provision bearing on the
point having been brought to our notice we would,
therefore, hold that the Revenue Minister could make
an order on behalf of the State Government.
9. The question, therefore, is whether he did in fact
make such an order. Merely writing something on the
file does not amount to an order. Before something
amounts to an order of the State Government two
things are necessary. The order has to be expressed
in the name of the Governor as required by clause (1)
of Article 166 and then it has to be communicated. As
11
CA NO. 3504/ 2022 etc.
already indicated, no formal order modifying the
decision of the Revenue Secretary was ever made.
Until such an order is drawn up the State Government
cannot, in our opinion, be regarded as bound by what
was stated in the file. As long as the matter rested
with him the Revenue Minister could well score out
his remarks or minutes on the file and write fresh
ones.
This judgment, he would point out was followed in
K.S.B. Ali v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others (2018) 11
SCC 277 and Dyna Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Crompton Greaves
Limited (2019) 20 SCC 1.
(12) Learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners
in the High Court, however, take us through the order of the
Division Bench and support the order. He would submit that
statutory rules were in place in the undivided State of
Madhya Pradesh. What is more, statutory rules have also
been made for newly governed State of Chhattisgarh on
21.06.2012. He would submit that under the M.P. Class III
(Non-Minstl.) Forest Service Recruitment Rules, 1967
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules’), for promotion for the
post of Forester, certain number of years as experience as
trained Guard is mandatory. Besides, by supporting the
reasoning of the Division Bench, he would also submit that
any attempt to draw support from circular 17.10.1977 as
followed in the State of Chhattisgarh would be in the teeth
of statutory Rules and hence would be ultra vires . At any
rate, the Court should not see any merit in the complaint of
the appellants, he contends.
12
CA NO. 3504/ 2022 etc.
(13) Per contra , Mr. Sourav Roy, learned Deputy Advocate
General, would submit that the reasoning of the High Court
in the impugned judgment may not be supportable. He would
also submit with reference to the stand taken by the State
in the counter affidavit that the earlier circular dated
17.10.1977 in the undivided State of Madhya Pradesh
continued to hold good and it was revoked finally in the
manner contemplated in law only with the issuance of order
dated 11.06.2012. In other words, he would, in substance,
support the stand of the appellants. He would submit that
while it may be true that there was a strike and a decision
was taken, it was only in principle, as is quite evident
from the communication dated 14.05.2009. It only indicates
that proposal was invited. Thereafter, as is true with any
Government decision, of the nature involved, it is a time
consuming affair. What is relevant is the legality of the
matter and therefore, for the validity of the matter if it
is a Government order, it has to be an order of the
Governor, which he agrees with the learned senior counsel
for the appellants, was passed only with the issuance of
order dated 11.06.2012. He would further point out that the
Court may not overlook the fact that the case of the writ
petitioners in the writ petition was not based essentially
on the withdrawal of the order dated 17.10.1977 by order
dated 14.05.2009. Instead, the case was based on the order
dated 17.10.1977 being completely eclipsed and suffering a
13
CA NO. 3504/ 2022 etc.
natural death as a result of the issuance of the
communication which is dated 14.12.2009. He would further
submit that there is also no merit in the complaint that
order dated 17.10.1977 was ultra vires . He would point out
that actually under the Rules which were extant while there
was a certain number of years to roll by as a Forest Guard
before a person could be considered for promotion as
Forester, in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the erstwhile
Rules, however, the Government may prescribe by order,
procedure which may be at variance from the existing rules.
Therefore, the order dated 17.10.1977 was projected to be
one such exercise. What is more, even in the newly enacted
Rules for the State of Chhattisgarh, a provision
corresponding to Rule 6(4) has been enacted. So, there is
no merit in the case of the ultra vires also.
(14) We think it is unnecessary to again burden the
judgment with copious reference to case law as we have
already referred to the paragraphs as contained in the
Constitution Bench of this Court in Bachhittar Singh
(supra).
What is relevant is that under the Rules, Rule 14(1)
provided for promotion from the post of Guard to Forester.
Under the same, we notice Schedule IV. It is provided that
a Forest Guard could be promoted after three years after
training from the Forest Guards Training School or after 12
years or more years of service in the case of untrained
14
CA NO. 3504/ 2022 etc.
Forest Guards. However, we must notice Rule 6. Rule 6 of
the said Rules provides for method of recruitment.
Rule 6 inter alia provides that recruitment to the
service after commencement of the Rules which we notice is
in the year 1967, can be made inter alia by promotion of
members of the service mentioned in column 12 of Schedule
IV. Thereafter what is relevant is sub Rule (4):
“(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule
(1), if in the opinion of the Government the
exigencies of the service so require, the Government
may adopt such methods of recruitment to the service
other than those specified in the said sub-rule, as
it may, by order issued in this behalf, prescribe.”
Therefore, it would appear to be the case of the State
that it is not as if the 1977 order was in any manner
contrary to the statutory rules and it was very much
premised on the statutory rules.
(15) We have already noticed the factual position. The
appellants undoubtedly stood first in the training programme
during the training as Forest Guards. There was a
reorganisation of the State as we have noticed. The
Government Order which would appear to be a Government Order
in the undivided State of Madhya Pradesh continued in terms
of the Reorganisation Act. Such Government Orders of the
undivided State of Madhya Pradesh would undoubtedly continue
to hold the field till it was revoked in the manner known to
law. The Division Bench in the impugned judgment has
proceeded on the basis that the Order dated 17.10.1977 was
15
CA NO. 3504/ 2022 etc.
revoked by order dated 14.05.2009. It is, undoubtedly, true
that in the said communication, it is addressed by the
Secretary to the Principal Chief Forest Conservator. The
proposed strike and the decision taken is referred to. At
the same time, it all ends by requesting that the necessary
proposal be submitted. It is thereafter that communication
dated 14.12.2009 came to be made. Communication dated
14.12.2009 is not an order of the Governor or expressed to
be made in his name. It is a communication, no doubt,
issued by a Chief Forest Conservator. Therein, no doubt,
reference is made to the demands made by the Employees Union
and that the decision had been taken to give two additional
increments to the trainees who stood first in the Forest
Guard training in replacement of the earlier incentive of
sending them for training as Forester. It is also stated
that there is no need to send the candidates who stood first
in the Forest Guard training for training as Forester. It
is reiterated that as per the directions of the Chhattisgarh
Government, the trainees who stood first are entitled for
only 02 additional increments. We must notice that this
communication does not bear the insignia of a Government
Order, which alone would suffice to show that order dated
17.10.1977 stood withdrawn. Whereas we would find that the
communication dated 11.06.2012 contains two specific signs.
Firstly, it is expressly made in the name of the Governor.
Secondly, it specifically revokes the communication dated
16
CA NO. 3504/ 2022 etc.
17.10.1977. The Division Bench has proceeded to consider
the case based on the communication dated 14.05.2009 which
we must note is a case which even the writ petitioners did
not have. A perusal of the pleadings of the writ petition
would show that the case of the writ petitioners was
premised on the order dated 14.12.2009 bringing about the
revocation of the order dated 17.10.77. Even the
petitioners did not, in other words, set up a case that
14.05.2009 is an order revoking 14.05.2009. In matters of
this nature, the role of proper pleadings must be emphasised
for the parties join issue on the basis of the case which
has been built up before the Court.
We are of the view, therefore, that the reasoning
which has been employed by the Division Bench cannot be
sustained. The appeals are allowed and the impugned
judgments will stand set aside. There will be no orders as
to costs.
…………………………………………………………………………., J.
[ K.M. JOSEPH ]
…………………………………………………………………………., J.
[ HRISHIKESH ROY ]
New Delhi;
April 29, 2022.
17
CA NO. 3504/ 2022 etc.
ITEM NO.22 COURT NO.10 SECTION IV-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No. 3504/2022
(Arising out of SLP (C)No. 13668/2015)
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13-01-2015
in WA No. 02/2015 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh)
OMKAR SINHA & ANR. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
SAHADAT KHAN & ORS. Respondent(s)
(With IA No. 1/2015 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
WITH
C.A. No. 3505/2022 (IV-C)
(Arising out of SLP (C)No. 13684/2015)
(With IA No. 4/2016 - exemption from filing O.T. and IA No. 3/2015
- EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No. 1/2015 - EXEMPTION FROM
FILING O.T. and IA No. 2/2015 - PERMISSION TO FILE ANNEXURES)
Date : 29-04-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY
For Appellant(s)
Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Navin Prakash, AOR
Ms. Garima Tiwari, Adv.
Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava, Adv.
Mr. Abhijeet Shrivastava, Adv.
Ms. Harneet Kaur Khanuja, Adv.
Ms. Sukriti Chauhan, Adv.
Mr. Arpit Jain, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Vikrant Singh Bais, AOR
Mr. Rakesh S., Adv.
Mr. Sourav Roy, Dy.A.G.
Mr. Mahesh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Kaushal Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Srinivasa Kumar Bogisam, Adv.
18
CA NO. 3504/ 2022 etc.
Ms. Devika Kahanna, Adv.
Ms. V. D. Khanna, Adv.
M/s. VMZ Chamber, AOR
Mr. Niraj Sharma, AOR
Mr. Yogesh Tiwari, Adv.
Mr. Sumit K. Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Mahima Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Vaishnavi Paliwal, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed
reportable judgment.
Pending applications stand disposed of.
(NIDHI AHUJA) (RENU KAPOOR)
AR-cum-PS BRANCH OFFICER
[Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file.]
19