S R.S Filling Station Bariha Taranpur v. State of U.P. and Ors.), a coordinate bench of this Court has

1. Heard Sri Rajiva Dubey, the learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Nirmal Kumar Pandey, the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant revision has been filed with the prayer to allow this revision with cost and set aside the impugned summoning order dated 1-6-2012 against the revisionist in Complaint Case No. 1139 /2012, U/s 33/63 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and also set aside the impugned order dated 2-7-2012 issuing N.B.W. and also quash the complaint filed by the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 against the revisionist U/s 33/63 of the Indian Forest Act.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist was allotted a petrol pump in the name and style of M/s Shreyas Filling Station, Pilibhit to Basti road and the agreement was entered into between the revisionist and B.P.C.L on 8.8.2005. He submitted that the forest department under certain misconception instituted a complaint case bearing Case No. 1139 of 2012, without considering the fact that No- Objection-Certificate has already been issued by the authority concerned for establishing the petrol pump. Further, it has been ignored by the concerned authorities of the forest department that the notification for the reserve forest under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was for the period of 30 years and particularly, the same issued in the year 1960 and no further notification was issued and thus, the notification was applicable up till the year 1990. He also submits that in the leading petition i.e. Application u/s 482 No. 4104 of 2014 (M/S R.S Filling Station Bariha Taranpur Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.), a coordinate bench of this Court has passed the order on 18.07.2023 wherein, the statement of Sanajay Biswal, Divisional Forest Officer, Lakhimpur is recorded. The order dated 18.7.2023 is quoted hereinunder:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. In pursuance of the earlier order dated 04.07.2023 passed in connected petition, Mr. Sanjay Biswal, Divisional Forest Officer, Lakhimpur Kheri is present in Court and informs that at the time of issuance of NOC by the District Magistrate, no report was asked from the Forest Department. He further submitted that it is obligatory on the part of the applicant to obtain NOC from the Forest Department under the provision of Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. He further submitted that it was obligatory on the part of the District Authority to collect all the reports from the concerned department prior to issuance of NOC. He further submitted that area in question was notified under the Forest Vide Notification dated 10.02.1960, but the same was applicable for the period 30 years only, and thereafter, it was not extended. He next submitted that identical controversy was already decided by the Jharkhand High Court in Criminal Misc.Petition No.612 of 2009. The aforesaid notification as well as judgement of the Jharkhand High Court are annexed with the supplementary affidavit.

3. Mr. Sanjay Biswal requested for sometime to look into the matter and also assure that issue will be resolved very soon.

4. List this case on 10.08.2023.

5. In the meantime, Divisional Forest Officer may file response in relation to the aforesaid facts mentioned in the present order.

6. It is open to the applicant to move appropriate application before the Divisional Forest Officer to get necessary NOC, in case any application is moved, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law. has been observed that the order dated 18.07.2023 Mr R. S filling Station Bail other state of U.P. and others."

4. Referring the aforesaid, he submits that subsequently, while filing the supplementary counter affidavit, a letter dated 11.01.2024 is appended which clearly provides that there are no any tree as an obstacle for ingress and egress of the petrol pump and the issue has been put to rest by the Forest Department. In this regard, the order dated 11.01.2024 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer South Khiri, Forest Division is quoted hereinunder:- ""ररिट ययाचचिकया ससंख्यया-4404/2014 आरि०एस० चफिललसंग बनयाम उ०्ቚ० सरिकयारि व 06 अन्य सममेचकत ययाचचिकयाओसं मम मया० उच्चि न्ययाययालय, खण्डपपीठ लखनऊ दयारिया पयाररित चनररय चदिनयासंक 18.12.2023 कको ययाचचिकया ककी ससुनवयाई करितमे हहयमे आदिमेश पयाररित चकयया हह, लजिसकया मसुख्य असंश चनम्न ्ቚकयारि हह...' "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G A. for the State. 2. The present application has been filed for quashing the the entire proceedings of the Case No. 11.3.3 of 2012 pending before learned A.C.J.M.-III, Kheri U/s 33 and 63 of Indian Forest Act.3 (On 05.12.2023 following order was passed:- "1. Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. duly sworn by Mr. Sanjay Biswal, Divisional Forest Officer is taken on record. 2 Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The present application has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of the Case No. 1133 of 2012 pending before learned A.C.J.M.-III. Kheri U/s 33 and 63 of Indian Forest Act. 4. On 18.07.2023 following order was passed:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. In pursuance of the earlier order dated 04.07.2023 passed in connected petition, Mr. Sanjay Biswal, Divisional Forest Officer, Lakhimpur Kheri is present in Court and informs that at the time of issuance of NOC by the District Magistrate, no report was asked from the Forest Department. He further submitted that it is obligatory on the part of the applicant to obtain NOC from the Forest Department under the provision of Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. He further submitted that it was obligatory on the part of the District Authority to collect all the reports from the concerned department prior to issuance of NOC. He further submitted that area in question was notified under the Forest Vide Notification dated 10.02.1960, but the same was applicable for the period 30 years only, and thereafter, it was not extended. He next submitted that identical controversy was already decided by the Jharkhand High Court in Criminal Misc. Petition No.612 of 2009. The aforesaid notification as well as judgement of the Jharkhand High Court are annexed with the supplementary affidavit. 3. Mr. Sanjay Biswal requested for sometime to look into the matter and also assure that issue will be resolved very soon. 4. List this case on 10.08.2023. 5. In the meantime, Divisional Forest Officer may file response in relation to the aforesaid facts mentioned in the present order. 6. It is open to the applicant to move appropriate application before the Divisional Forest Officer to get necessary NOC, in case any application is moved, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law." 5. In regard to the controversy discussed in paragraph no. 2 of the aforesaid order, reply is not given by Divisional Forest Officer, 6. Learned A.G.A. prays for and is granted three days lime to file better aflidavit by giving explanation of the observations made in paragraph no. 2 of the aforesaid order. 7. List this case on 18.12.2023 at 11:30 A.M. for final hearing. 8. In case, the specific reply is not filed then Divisional Forest Officer, Kheri shall appear in person before this Court." 4. Mr. Bhapu Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. requests for sometime to file counter affidavit in pursuance of aforesaid order. 5. List this case on 15.01.2024 at 11:30 A.M. 6. In case, the counter affidavit is not filed then the matter shall be decided finally." उलमेख करिनया हह चक ययाचचिकयाओसं मम चनचहत समस्त पमेटटकोल पम्पोሬ मम लजिलयालधिकयारिपी--खपीरिपी दयारिया अनयापलቈኌ ्ቚमयार-प्ቔ जियारिपी चकयया जिया चिसुकया हह। ययाचचिकया मम चनचहत समस्त पमेटटकोल पम्प रियाषटपीय रियाज्य मयागर परि. स्थयाचपत चकयया जियानया थया। उ्ሹ मयागर ससंरिचቌኌत वन घकोचषित हह एवसं उक्ቈኌ मयागर परि वन ससंरिቌኌर अलधिचनयम 1980 ्ቚभयावपी हह। भयारित सरिकयारि पययारवरिर वन एवसं जिलवयायसु पररिवतरन मसं्ቔयालय कमे प्ቔ ससंख्यया एफि०नसं० 11-268-एफि०सपी० चदिनयासंक

11.07.2014 कमे ्ቚस्तरि IV मम उचललखत चकयया गयया हह चक यचदि भयारित सरिकयारि दयारिया सडक कमे चनमयारर / चिचौडपीकरिर स्वपीककत ्ቚदियान ककी जिया चिसुककी हह तको वकቌኌोሬ कया पयातन हकोनमे ककी सस्थचत मम हपी Forest Conservation Act 1980 कमे अन्तगरत स्वपीककत ककी आवश्यकतया हह, ्ቚस्तरि IV चनम्नवतत् हह :- (iv) In case approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 for diversion of whole or a part of the forest land proposed to be utilised for construction. of approach road for a fuel station has already been accorded by the central government for construction/widening of road Approval under the forest (conservation) act 1980 for use of such forest land for construction of approach/exist for fuel station will be required only if it involves clearing of or felling of any tree. कयाययारलय मम ससंधियाररित प्ቔयावललयोሬ / अचभलमेखोሬ कया परिपीቌኌर करिनमे परि यह तथ्य ्ቚकयाश मम पयायया गयया चक ययाचचिकयाओसं मम चनचहत रियामरित पमेटटकोल पम्प कमे रिवयाचगयोሬ कको पमेटटकोल पम्प कया सचियालन हमेतसु लजिलयालधिकयारिपी-खपीरिपी दयारि। अनयापलቈኌ प्ቔ चनगरत चकयया जिया चिसुकया हह तथया वतरमयान समय मम समरित पमेटटकोल पम्प ससंचियाललत हह। पमेटटकोल पम्प ससंचियाललत हकोनमे ककी सस्थचत मम पमेटटकोल पम्प कमे आवयागमन मयागर मम ककोई वकቌኌ बयाधिक नहीሻ हह। उक्ቈኌ ककी सस्थचत मम मया० उच्चि न्ययाययालय खण्डपपीठ लखनऊ दयारिया पयाररित चनररय चदिनयासंक 18.12.2023 कमे समयादिरि एवसं भयारित सरिकयारि पययारवरिर वन एवसं जिलवयायसु पररिवतरन मसं्ቔयालय कमे प्ቔ ससंख्यया एफि०नसं० 11-268-एफि०सपी० चदिनयासंक 11.07.2014 कमे ्ቅम मम ययाचचिकया मम चनचहत समस्त ्ቚकरिर चनस्तयाररित चकयया जियातया हह।""

5. The submission of counsel for the revisionist is that since the forest department itself has put the controversy at rest while passing the order dated 11.01.2024 and therefore, there is no such dispute regarding violation of any provisions of the law.

6. Apart from the above, he submits that in fact no offence has been committed by the revisionist as the agreement was entered into between the BPCL and the revisionist in 2005 and the NOC was issued by the District Magistrate after considering the facts and circumstances including the laws in favour of the revisionist and therefore, there was no intent to commit offence as is alleged in the complaint of the year 2012, instituted against the revisionist. Further submission is that since the forest department itself has filed the affidavit and has taken a decision that there is no obstacle with respect to any kind of tree over the land in question and it is in fact shows that the forest department has admitted this fact otherwise that they have no objection with respect to any land as has already been alleged in the complaint that the land has unauthorisedly been used by the revisionist and they are committing offence and therefore, the complaint which is instituted against the revisionist has now become meaningless. Therefore, submission is that the criminal proceeding arising out of the Complaint Case No. 1139 of 2012 against the revisionist may be quashed.

7. Contrary, Sri Nirmal Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid, but he has admitted the fact that the Divisional Forest Officer has stated before this Court which has been recorded by the coordinate bench on 18.7.2023, that the area in question was notified under the Reserve Forest vide notification dated

10.02.1960 and the same was applicable for the period of thirty years only and thereafter, it was not extended. Further, it is also been admitted that subsequently a supplementary counter affidavit was filed wherein, the order dated 11.01.2024 is appended and thus, there seems to be no force in complaint filed by the Divisional and Regional Forest Officers.

8. Considering the submissions of counsel for the parties particularly the statement given by the Divisional Forest Officer before this Court on 18.7.2024 as well as the letter dated 11.01.2024 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, this Court finds that the further criminal proceedings against the revisionist would be abuse of process of law and this would not meet the ends of interest of justice, therefore, the criminal proceedings arising out of complaint case no. 1139 of 2012 are hereby quashed.

9. Accordingly, the revision is allowed.

10. Registry is directed to communicate this order to the learned trial court concerned, forthwith. Order Date :- 11.4.2025 Mayank MAYANK PRATAP SINGH MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Rajiva Dubey, the learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Nirmal Kumar Pandey, the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant revision has been filed with the prayer to allow this revision with cost and set aside the impugned summoning order dated 1-6-2012 against the revisionist in Complaint Case No. 1139 /2012, U/s 33/63 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and also set aside the impugned order dated 2-7-2012 issuing N.B.W. and also quash the complaint filed by the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 against the revisionist U/s 33/63 of the Indian Forest Act.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist was allotted a petrol pump in the name and style of M/s Shreyas Filling Station, Pilibhit to Basti road and the agreement was entered into between the revisionist and B.P.C.L on 8.8.2005. He submitted that the forest department under certain misconception instituted a complaint case bearing Case No. 1139 of 2012, without considering the fact that No- Objection-Certificate has already been issued by the authority concerned for establishing the petrol pump. Further, it has been ignored by the concerned authorities of the forest department that the notification for the reserve forest under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was for the period of 30 years and particularly, the same issued in the year 1960 and no further notification was issued and thus, the notification was applicable up till the year 1990. He also submits that in the leading petition i.e. Application u/s 482 No. 4104 of 2014 (M/S R.S Filling Station Bariha Taranpur Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.), a coordinate bench of this Court has passed the order on 18.07.2023 wherein, the statement of Sanajay Biswal, Divisional Forest Officer, Lakhimpur is recorded. The order dated 18.7.2023 is quoted hereinunder:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. In pursuance of the earlier order dated 04.07.2023 passed in connected petition, Mr. Sanjay Biswal, Divisional Forest Officer, Lakhimpur Kheri is present in Court and informs that at the time of issuance of NOC by the District Magistrate, no report was asked from the Forest Department. He further submitted that it is obligatory on the part of the applicant to obtain NOC from the Forest Department under the provision of Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. He further submitted that it was obligatory on the part of the District Authority to collect all the reports from the concerned department prior to issuance of NOC. He further submitted that area in question was notified under the Forest Vide Notification dated 10.02.1960, but the same was applicable for the period 30 years only, and thereafter, it was not extended. He next submitted that identical controversy was already decided by the Jharkhand High Court in Criminal Misc.Petition No.612 of 2009. The aforesaid notification as well as judgement of the Jharkhand High Court are annexed with the supplementary affidavit.

3. Mr. Sanjay Biswal requested for sometime to look into the matter and also assure that issue will be resolved very soon.

4. List this case on 10.08.2023.

5. In the meantime, Divisional Forest Officer may file response in relation to the aforesaid facts mentioned in the present order.

6. It is open to the applicant to move appropriate application before the Divisional Forest Officer to get necessary NOC, in case any application is moved, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law. has been observed that the order dated 18.07.2023 Mr R. S filling Station Bail other state of U.P. and others."

4. Referring the aforesaid, he submits that subsequently, while filing the supplementary counter affidavit, a letter dated 11.01.2024 is appended which clearly provides that there are no any tree as an obstacle for ingress and egress of the petrol pump and the issue has been put to rest by the Forest Department. In this regard, the order dated 11.01.2024 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer South Khiri, Forest Division is quoted hereinunder:- ""ररिट ययाचचिकया ससंख्यया-4404/2014 आरि०एस० चफिललसंग बनयाम उ०्ቚ० सरिकयारि व 06 अन्य सममेचकत ययाचचिकयाओसं मम मया० उच्चि न्ययाययालय, खण्डपपीठ लखनऊ दयारिया पयाररित चनररय चदिनयासंक 18.12.2023 कको ययाचचिकया ककी ससुनवयाई करितमे हहयमे आदिमेश पयाररित चकयया हह, लजिसकया मसुख्य असंश चनम्न ्ቚकयारि हह...' "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G A. for the State. 2. The present application has been filed for quashing the the entire proceedings of the Case No. 11.3.3 of 2012 pending before learned A.C.J.M.-III, Kheri U/s 33 and 63 of Indian Forest Act.3 (On 05.12.2023 following order was passed:- "1. Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. duly sworn by Mr. Sanjay Biswal, Divisional Forest Officer is taken on record. 2 Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The present application has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of the Case No. 1133 of 2012 pending before learned A.C.J.M.-III. Kheri U/s 33 and 63 of Indian Forest Act. 4. On 18.07.2023 following order was passed:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. In pursuance of the earlier order dated 04.07.2023 passed in connected petition, Mr. Sanjay Biswal, Divisional Forest Officer, Lakhimpur Kheri is present in Court and informs that at the time of issuance of NOC by the District Magistrate, no report was asked from the Forest Department. He further submitted that it is obligatory on the part of the applicant to obtain NOC from the Forest Department under the provision of Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. He further submitted that it was obligatory on the part of the District Authority to collect all the reports from the concerned department prior to issuance of NOC. He further submitted that area in question was notified under the Forest Vide Notification dated 10.02.1960, but the same was applicable for the period 30 years only, and thereafter, it was not extended. He next submitted that identical controversy was already decided by the Jharkhand High Court in Criminal Misc. Petition No.612 of 2009. The aforesaid notification as well as judgement of the Jharkhand High Court are annexed with the supplementary affidavit. 3. Mr. Sanjay Biswal requested for sometime to look into the matter and also assure that issue will be resolved very soon. 4. List this case on 10.08.2023. 5. In the meantime, Divisional Forest Officer may file response in relation to the aforesaid facts mentioned in the present order. 6. It is open to the applicant to move appropriate application before the Divisional Forest Officer to get necessary NOC, in case any application is moved, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law." 5. In regard to the controversy discussed in paragraph no. 2 of the aforesaid order, reply is not given by Divisional Forest Officer, 6. Learned A.G.A. prays for and is granted three days lime to file better aflidavit by giving explanation of the observations made in paragraph no. 2 of the aforesaid order. 7. List this case on 18.12.2023 at 11:30 A.M. for final hearing. 8. In case, the specific reply is not filed then Divisional Forest Officer, Kheri shall appear in person before this Court." 4. Mr. Bhapu Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. requests for sometime to file counter affidavit in pursuance of aforesaid order. 5. List this case on 15.01.2024 at 11:30 A.M. 6. In case, the counter affidavit is not filed then the matter shall be decided finally." उलमेख करिनया हह चक ययाचचिकयाओसं मम चनचहत समस्त पमेटटकोल पम्पोሬ मम लजिलयालधिकयारिपी--खपीरिपी दयारिया अनयापलቈኌ ्ቚमयार-प्ቔ जियारिपी चकयया जिया चिसुकया हह। ययाचचिकया मम चनचहत समस्त पमेटटकोल पम्प रियाषटपीय रियाज्य मयागर परि. स्थयाचपत चकयया जियानया थया। उ्ሹ मयागर ससंरिचቌኌत वन घकोचषित हह एवसं उक्ቈኌ मयागर परि वन ससंरिቌኌर अलधिचनयम 1980 ्ቚभयावपी हह। भयारित सरिकयारि पययारवरिर वन एवसं जिलवयायसु पररिवतरन मसं्ቔयालय कमे प्ቔ ससंख्यया एफि०नसं० 11-268-एफि०सपी० चदिनयासंक

11.07.2014 कमे ्ቚस्तरि IV मम उचललखत चकयया गयया हह चक यचदि भयारित सरिकयारि दयारिया सडक कमे चनमयारर / चिचौडपीकरिर स्वपीककत ्ቚदियान ककी जिया चिसुककी हह तको वकቌኌोሬ कया पयातन हकोनमे ककी सस्थचत मम हपी Forest Conservation Act 1980 कमे अन्तगरत स्वपीककत ककी आवश्यकतया हह, ्ቚस्तरि IV चनम्नवतत् हह :- (iv) In case approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 for diversion of whole or a part of the forest land proposed to be utilised for construction. of approach road for a fuel station has already been accorded by the central government for construction/widening of road Approval under the forest (conservation) act 1980 for use of such forest land for construction of approach/exist for fuel station will be required only if it involves clearing of or felling of any tree. कयाययारलय मम ससंधियाररित प्ቔयावललयोሬ / अचभलमेखोሬ कया परिपीቌኌर करिनमे परि यह तथ्य ्ቚकयाश मम पयायया गयया चक ययाचचिकयाओसं मम चनचहत रियामरित पमेटटकोल पम्प कमे रिवयाचगयोሬ कको पमेटटकोल पम्प कया सचियालन हमेतसु लजिलयालधिकयारिपी-खपीरिपी दयारि। अनयापलቈኌ प्ቔ चनगरत चकयया जिया चिसुकया हह तथया वतरमयान समय मम समरित पमेटटकोल पम्प ससंचियाललत हह। पमेटटकोल पम्प ससंचियाललत हकोनमे ककी सस्थचत मम पमेटटकोल पम्प कमे आवयागमन मयागर मम ककोई वकቌኌ बयाधिक नहीሻ हह। उक्ቈኌ ककी सस्थचत मम मया० उच्चि न्ययाययालय खण्डपपीठ लखनऊ दयारिया पयाररित चनररय चदिनयासंक 18.12.2023 कमे समयादिरि एवसं भयारित सरिकयारि पययारवरिर वन एवसं जिलवयायसु पररिवतरन मसं्ቔयालय कमे प्ቔ ससंख्यया एफि०नसं० 11-268-एफि०सपी० चदिनयासंक 11.07.2014 कमे ्ቅम मम ययाचचिकया मम चनचहत समस्त ्ቚकरिर चनस्तयाररित चकयया जियातया हह।""

5. The submission of counsel for the revisionist is that since the forest department itself has put the controversy at rest while passing the order dated 11.01.2024 and therefore, there is no such dispute regarding violation of any provisions of the law.

6. Apart from the above, he submits that in fact no offence has been committed by the revisionist as the agreement was entered into between the BPCL and the revisionist in 2005 and the NOC was issued by the District Magistrate after considering the facts and circumstances including the laws in favour of the revisionist and therefore, there was no intent to commit offence as is alleged in the complaint of the year 2012, instituted against the revisionist. Further submission is that since the forest department itself has filed the affidavit and has taken a decision that there is no obstacle with respect to any kind of tree over the land in question and it is in fact shows that the forest department has admitted this fact otherwise that they have no objection with respect to any land as has already been alleged in the complaint that the land has unauthorisedly been used by the revisionist and they are committing offence and therefore, the complaint which is instituted against the revisionist has now become meaningless. Therefore, submission is that the criminal proceeding arising out of the Complaint Case No. 1139 of 2012 against the revisionist may be quashed.

7. Contrary, Sri Nirmal Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid, but he has admitted the fact that the Divisional Forest Officer has stated before this Court which has been recorded by the coordinate bench on 18.7.2023, that the area in question was notified under the Reserve Forest vide notification dated

10.02.1960 and the same was applicable for the period of thirty years only and thereafter, it was not extended. Further, it is also been admitted that subsequently a supplementary counter affidavit was filed wherein, the order dated 11.01.2024 is appended and thus, there seems to be no force in complaint filed by the Divisional and Regional Forest Officers.

8. Considering the submissions of counsel for the parties particularly the statement given by the Divisional Forest Officer before this Court on 18.7.2024 as well as the letter dated 11.01.2024 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, this Court finds that the further criminal proceedings against the revisionist would be abuse of process of law and this would not meet the ends of interest of justice, therefore, the criminal proceedings arising out of complaint case no. 1139 of 2012 are hereby quashed.

9. Accordingly, the revision is allowed.

10. Registry is directed to communicate this order to the learned trial court concerned, forthwith. Order Date :- 11.4.2025 Mayank MAYANK PRATAP SINGH MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench