RAMESH CHANDRA SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri M.D. Mishra, for the petitioners.

(2.) This writ petition was listed for "admission" in the cause list on 05.05.2014. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that writ petition was heard for admission on 06.11.2012. The Court, after hearing the arguments, recorded prima facie satisfaction that writ petition raised substantial issue for consideration and issued notice to the respondents. Chapter XXII Rule 2 of the High Court Rules, provides that if the Court does not find sufficient reasons to admit the application it may reject it. Where the application is not so rejected, notice thereof shall be served on such opposite parties named in the application and on such other persons, if any, as the Court may direct. After issue of the notice, the writ petition is liable to be listed for "hearing" on its turn. Chapter VIII Rule 33 confers exclusive jurisdiction to Chief Justice to expedite the hearing of the case. Hearing of the writ petition on merit can only be done when writ petition is listed for "hearing" either on its turn or expedited by Chief Justice. The writ petition is wrongly listed for admission and should be listed for hearing on its turn.

(3.) I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner. In exercise of powers under Article 225 of Constitution of India, Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 has been framed. Chapter XXII provides procedure for the writ under Article 226 of the Constitution, other than a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus. Rule 1 provides for filing/receiving of the writ petition by Division Bench or Single Judge of the natures as specified in it. Rule 2 provides for notice which reads as "if the Court does not find sufficient reasons to admit the application it may reject it. Where the application is not so rejected, notice thereof shall be served on such opposite parties". According to the counsel for the petitioner as the notice has been issued 06.11.2012 as such the writ petition be treated to be admitted. The order dated 06.11.2012 directing the writ petition to be listed for admission is not according to the provisions of Rule 2 and has no meaning and it shall be deemed to be admitted.