4213 of 1968 in the High Court at Allahabad.
In Civil Appeal No.
The appellants filed objections under section 9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954.
750 of 1964.
750 of 1964, the Appellate Tribunal did number think it necessary to pass any order in his case.
3294 of 1970 in the High Court at Allahabad.
The matter was referred to the Full Bench.
10 to 12.
On 26 July, 1971 the writ petition was listed for orders before a Division Bench companysisting of the Chief Justice of the High Court and another learned Judge sitting at Lucknow.
Writ Petition No.
Whether this writ petition can be entertained, heard and decided by the Judges sitting at Lucknow ?
Can the Judges sitting at Allahabad summarily dismiss a case presented at Allahabad pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench ?
3294 of 1970.
The appellant and the respondent No.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated the 17th December, 1971 of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No.
However, on 25 April, 1968, the stay order was vacated.
The order of the Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow, dated 28 March, 1963 and the Regional Transport Authority, Bareilly, dated 28 April, 1964 were quashed and the Appellate Tribunal was directed to re hear the appeals on merits.
750 of 1964, issued numberice to the 15 persons who had been granted permits originally and the 9 persons, who had preferred appeals, regarding rehearing of the appeals.
750 of 1964, heard the appeals and directed the Regional Transport Authority, Bareilly to grant one permanent stage carriage permit to each of the respondents Nos.
3 applied for grant of permits.
Sarjoo Prasad, R.N. Sharma, H.D. Srivastava, Hari Nath Tihari, B.C. Saxena and C.P. Lal for the Appellant in C.A. Nos.
From the Judgment and order dated the 28th March, 1973, of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Revision No.
3294 of 1970 was filed before the Lucnow Bench of the High Court by respondents Nos.
4170 of 1971.
Criminal Appeal No.
The order came into effect on the appointed day, namely, 26 July, 1948.
It is in this companytext that the following five questions were referred for decision to the Full Bench Can a case falling within the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench of this Court be presented at Allahabad ?
470 of 1971 in the High Court at Lucknow for a writ of certiorari for quashing order dated 11 December, 1970 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Shahjahanpur, with headquarters at Lucknow.
Question arose as to whether the revision should have been filed before the Lucknow Bench.
On appeal the order was upheld by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Shahjahanpur.
The Regional Transport Authority, Bareilly had, in the meanwhile, 20 February, 1963, increased the strength of the routes from 5 to 15 and invited applications.
By an order dated 28 March, 1963, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal at Lucknow allowed all the nine appeals and remanded the matter to the Regional Transport Authority, Bareilly, for reconsideration.
The Regional Transport Authority, Bareilly, by order dated 2 October, 1961 instead of granting five permits, increased the strength of the route to 15 permits and granted one permit each to the appellant, the respondent No.
1940 1941/72.
3294 of 1970 are these.
The writ petition was admitted and a stay order was granted.
3 to 9 for quashing the order dated 12 May, 1970 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal at Lucknow.
The Lucknow Bench have numberjurisdiction to hear writ petition No.
It is this order which forms subject matter of writ petition No.
3 filed Writ Petition No.
One of the grounds in the writ petition was that the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court had numberjurisdiction to entertain and decide the writ petition No.
Has this expression reference to the place where the case originated or to the place of the sitting of the last Court of authority whose decree or order is being challenged in the proceedings before the High Court ?
S. Nariman, G.L. Verma, S.P. Singh, R.P. Singh, S.K. Bagga and Mrs. S. Bagga for the Intervener in Allahabad Bar Association in C.A. 1940/72.
1 and respondent No.
The respondents also claimed the direction that the judgment of the High Court sitting at Lucknow dated 15 September, 1966 in Writ Petition No.
The matter eventually came before the Full Bench.
3 and 13 others.
3294 of 1970.
254 of 1974.
1 to went up in revision and the Deputy Director, Consolidation, on 11 December, 1970, set aside the order.
750 of 1964, because the dispute arose at Bareilly in Rohilkhand Division, which was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court, sitting at Allahabad, and it had numberhing to do with the Oudh territory.
The permit granted to the appellant was valid from 9 June, 1961 to 8 June 1964.
On 1 November, 1965, the Regional Transport Authority, Bareilly, rejected the application of the appellant for the renewal of his permit on the ground that the permit granted to him originally was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal by an order dated 28 March, 1963.
750 of 1964 is a nullity.
On 9 June 1966 the appellant succeeded in his Writ Petition No.
The Regional Transport Authority, Bareilly, by an order dated 28 April, 1964 granted five permits, one of which was granted to the respondent No.
Yogeshwar Prasad, G.N. Verma, S.P. Singh, R.P. Singh, K. Bagga and Mrs. S. Bagga for the Intervener in Allahabad Bar Association in C.A. 1941/72.
1941 of 1972 the appellants filed writ petition No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ray, C.J. Two of these appeals are by special leave and one by certificate from the judgment dated 17 December, 1971 of the Full Bench of the High Court at Allahabad.
The appellant was number granted a permit.
The facts in Writ Petition No.
What is the meaning of the expression in respect of cases arising in such areas in oudh used in first proviso to Article 14 of the High Court Amalgamation order, 1948 ?
The Registry of the High Court at Lucknow reported that the petition related to the District of Shahjahanpur and question was raised as to the companypetency of the writ petition being presented before the Bench sitting at Lucknow.
750 of 1964 which gave rise to writ petition No.
The respondent No.
Respondents No.
750 of 1964 before the Judges of the High Court sitting at Lucknow, challenging the order of the Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow, dated 28th March, 1963 as well as the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Bareilly dated 28 April, 1964.
Eventually the matter came before the Full Bench.
3 filed writ petition No.
The revision relates to the sentence under section 25 of the Arms Act passed by the Temporary Civil Sessions Judge, Rae Bareli.
3294 of 1970 and Criminal Appeal No.
270 of 1973.
The appellant preferred an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal and succeeded on 8 January, 1968.
The Appellate Tribunal at Lucknow, pursuant to the orders in Writ Petition No.
The unsuccessful appellants filed appeals against the order.
Civil Appeal No.
Respondent No.
270 of 1973 filed in the High Court at Allahabad.
The Regional Transport Authority, Bareilly fixed the strength of Chandausi Rajghat route at 5 stage carriage permits.
Their objections were allowed by the Consolidation officer.
1940 1941 of 1972.
The United Provinces High Courts Amalgamation order, 1948, hereinafter referred to as the order, was promulgated under section 229 of the Government of India Act, 1935.
The appellant filed Writ Petition No.
1940 of 1972 arises out of the Writ Petition No.
Can a case pertaining to the jurisdiction of Lucknow Bench, presented and entertained at Allahabad, be decided finally by the Judges sitting at Allahabad, without there being an order as companytemplated by the second proviso to Article 14 of the U.P. High Court Amalgamation order, 1948 ?
Inasmuch as the appellant was granted a permit in pursuance of the order in Writ Petition No.
4, 5 and 7 applied for the grant of permits.
On 17 June, 1968, the Appellate Tribunal, in pursuance of the orders of the High Court in Writ Petition No.
Against the said order, the respondent No.
