MOHD AURANGZEB Vs. DIST MAGISTRATE AND 6 ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri S.K. Varma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Deep Chand Singh learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 to 7 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos 1 to 3.

(2.) The special appeal questions the correctness of the judgement of the learned Single Judge dated 7th December, 2018 whereby the petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed on the ground that admittedly the document quashing whereof has been sought was not part of the writ petition. For this learned the Single Judge has relied on his own judgement in Writ Petition No. 59231 of 2011 Nause Khan Vs. State of U.P. and Others decided on 14.10.2011.

(3.) Sri Varma submits that there are two grounds on which he presses this appeal. Firstly, that the judgement which has been relied upon by the learned Single Judge does not reflect the correct position of law and he in turn has relied on the decision of a Division Bench in the case of S. Barrow Vs. State of U.P. and Another, (1958) AIR Allahabad 154 paras 17 & 18 and contends that for the purpose of the exercise of writ of certiorari the records should be there before the Court and therefore even assuming for the sake of arguments that it was not appended along with the writ petition and had been appended along with the counter affidavit, the learned Single Judge could not have dismissed the writ petition merely on this ground that the document was not part of the petition.