U.P.S.R.T.C. MEERUTversusTOTA RAM AND OTHERS

           HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                              WRIT - C No. - 22861 of 2002

U.P.S.R.T.C. Meerut
                                                                            .....Petitioner(s)
                                            Versus

Tota Ram And Others
                                                                          .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)               : Amrendra Nath Rai, Avanish Mishra,
                                          J.N.Singh, Sunil Kumar Mishra, Vikas
                                          Sahai
Counsel for Respondent(s)               : C.S.C., Maqbool Ahmad, Rahul Anand
                                          Gaur

With Writ Petition No.32996 of 2002.


Court No. - 36

              HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1. Heard Sri Amrendra Nath Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners and
Sri P.S.,Chauhan, learned Standing Counsel.

2. This is a bunch of two writ petitions.

3. On 10.5.2019, following orders were passed in both the writ petitions:

Order in Writ Petition No.22861 of 2002

“ This petition was entertained by detailed order dated 24.5.2002 which reads as follows:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Sections 90 and 91 of the U.P. Re-organization

Act 2000 for the proposition that legal proceedings or other proceedings pending before any

tribunal, authority or officer immediately before appointed dated i.e. 9.11.2000 shall stand

transferred to the corresponding tribunal or authority of Uttaranchal and Uttaranchal State will

be substituted for the State of U.P. in those proceedings.


In this case the award is dated 30.9.2000, i.e. before appointed date but it is said to have

been published subsequent to the appointed date. Thus, on the appointed date, the matter

was pending before the Govt. of U.P. The said matter before the State of U.P. would amount a

proceeding because the State of U.P. is not bound to publish the award.

In the circumstances, issue notice to the respondent no.1. List after notice period.
                                                                       WRIC No. 22861 of 2002
                                         2


In the meantime, the operation of the impugned award will remain stayed till further orders."

The submission of Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the provisions

relating to transfer of legal proceedings or other proceedings pending before any tribunal,

authority or officer immediately before the appointed date under the U.P. Reorganization Act,

2000, that is, 9.11.2000 from concerned tribunal or authority in U.P. to the concerned tribunal

or authority in Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand) and substitution of State of Uttaranchal (now

Uttarakhand) in place of State of U.P., operates vice-versa too. He submits that where

proceedings were pending before a Court or Authority exercising territorial jurisdiction over an

area that is a part of Uttar Pradesh and that action was being dealt with by the authority or

tribunal now falling in Uttarakhand after the appointed date, would stand relocated to Uttar

Pradesh. The proceedings too would stand transferred from the concerned tribunal or

authority to the corresponding tribunal or authority in the State of U.P. where the cause of

action would arise upon the reorganization.

In this case, it is submitted that the award was passed on 30.9.2000 by Tribunal at Dehradun

relating to a cause of action that arose at Saharanpur over which the Tribunal at the time of

making the award, was validly exercising jurisdiction. However, by the time, the award came

to be published that is on 29.9.2001, the appointed date had fallen and therefore, in relation to

a cause of action arising at Saharanpur, though the award passed may be valid, the authority

to publish it, would not lie with the State of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand) but with the State of

U.P. or in more specific term with the Government of U.P.

In the present case, the award has been published by the State of Uttaranchal (now

Uttarakhand) which according to Sri Mishra, is ultra vires the provisions of U.P. Re-

organization Act, 2000.

Looking to the nature of controversy, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead

the State of Uttarakhand through Secretary in the appropriate Department as respondent no.4

to this petition during the course of the day.


Admit.

Issue notice returnable on 9.7.2019.


Steps be taken within a week by RPAD or speed post.

List for orders on 9.7.2019.


Interim order dated 24.5.2002 is made absolute.”


xxx
                                                                       WRIC No. 22861 of 2002
                                         3


Order in Writ Petition No.32996 of 2002


“Identical questions are involved in Writ Petition No.22861 of 2002, are involved in this
petition regarding which further orders recording the issue involved, have been passed today.

The same hold good in this petition also.


Accordingly, let Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner implead the State of

Uttarakhand through Secretary in the appropriate Department as respondent no.3 to this

petition during the course of the day.


Admit.


ssue notice fixing 9.7.2019.


Steps be taken within a week by RPAD or speed post.


ri Narendra Singh, Advocate waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent no.1. He is

granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit on behalf of the said respondent.


List for orders on 9.7.2019 alongwith connected matter.


Interim order dated 16.8.2002 is made absolute. “


4. Subsequently, in Writ Petition No.22861 of 2002, despite service no
one has entered appearance, but in Writ Petition No.32996 of 2002,
contesting respondent is being represented.

5. Today, learned counsel for the contesting respondent is not present.

6. In the aforesaid circumstances, considering the observations made in
the interim order are legally sustainable and no objection was made by
contesting respondent in the connected writ petition vide a counter
affidavit, therefore, in terms of the aforesaid interim order, impugned
award dated 26.2.2001 published on 5.4.2002 are set-aside. So far as
award dated 30.9.2000 is concerned, its publication is only set-aside.

7. This order will not come in the way if a fresh award or fresh
publication as the case may be is made in accordance with law.

8. Both the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.
                                                                                         WRIC No. 22861 of 2002
                                                                  4


                                    9. A copy of this order be sent to the contesting respondents in both writ
                                    petitions at their given addresses.



                                                                             (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
                                    September 15, 2026
                                    SB




Digitally signed by :-
SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad