Balu Singh Parmar v. State of Chhattisgarh
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 0606. Thus, it is clear from the impugned order of Annexure P/1 that it was not passed by the DGP as was directed by this Court in its order dated 26.11.2012 but passed by the IGP. So, it is clear that the respondents did not…
Judgment
Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Addl. A.G. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J Order on Board 26-09-2023 The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs: “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records of the case, from the respondents.
10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 30.03.2013 (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits, in accordance with law.
10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.”
#02. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is the second round of litigation. The petitioner had earlier filed WPS No.5051/2012 against the order of Director General of Police (DGP) and this Court vide order dated 26.11.2012 allowed the said petition and directed the DGP to decide the case of the petitioner in accordance with law on its own merits. But the respondent authorities are not following the order of this Court and appeal of the petitioner was decided by Inspector General of Police vide impugned order dated 30.3.2013 (Annexure P/1). Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the respondents be directed to follow the aforesaid order of this Court.
#03. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State strongly opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the appellate authority is IGP who has decided the appeal of the petitioner in accordance with law and as such, the present petition being without merit is liable to be dismissed.
#04. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
#05. This Court while deciding WPS No.5051/2012 vide order dated
26.11.2012 observed in paras 6 & 7 as under: “6. The communication dated 23.01.2012 (Annexure P/7) transferring the appeal does not give specific details about the date of filing of appeal in M.P. also.
#7. In view of foregoing, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the order impugned dated
26.09.2012 (Annexure P/1) is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Director General of Police to decide the case in accordance with law, on its own merits, and pass the appropriate order, not on the technical ground of delay.
#06. Thus, it is clear from the impugned order of Annexure P/1 that it was not passed by the DGP as was directed by this Court in its order dated 26.11.2012 but passed by the IGP. So, it is clear that the respondents did not comply with the previous order of this Court. Consequently, the impugned order 30.3.2013 (Annexure P/1) is set aside. Respondent No.3/DGP, Raipur is directed to pass order on merits, as per previous order of this Court dated 26.11.2012, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Khan Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.