Supreme Court - Daily Orders
State Of U.P. vs Dhirendra Kumar Rai on 10 March, 2015
Bench: Vikramajit Sen, Abhay Manohar Sapre
ITEM NO.5 COURT NO.12 SECTION XI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 23298/2010
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 15/07/2010
in WP No. 768/2008,15/07/2010 in WP No. 768/2008 passed by the High
Court Of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench)
STATE OF U.P. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
DHIRENDRA KUMAR RAI Respondent(s)
(with appln. (s) for permission to file additional documents and
office report)
(For final disposal)
Date : 10/03/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rajeev Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Vibhakar Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Vijay K. Jain,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The Appeal stands disposed of in terms of the signed order.
(NEELAM GULATI) (SAROJ SAINI) Signature Not Verified COURT MASTER COURT MASTER Digitally signed by Usha Rani Bhardwaj Date: 2015.03.11 (Signed Order is placed on the file) 16:41:43 IST Reason: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2813 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C ) No. 23298 of 2010) STATE OF U.P. Petitioner(s) VERSUS DHIRENDRA KUMAR RAI Respondent(s) O R D E R Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and have gone through the records. We find no reason to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. However, insofar as the High Court has directed the imposition of exemplary costs quantified at Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs), we think that keeping in perspective the facts that have been disclosed in the Impugned Judgment, these costs were not necessary or called for. Accordingly, the imposition of costs is set aside. We also appreciate that there may be two opinions on the assumptions of wrongdoings, and therefore to ascribe any malafides to the Chief Secretary, or the Superintendent of Police, Chitrakoot, or to the SHO, Karvi would be inappropriate; these observations are also struck off.
The Appeal stands disposed of with the above observations.
…..............J (VIKRAMAJIT SEN) …..............J (ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE) NEW DELHI MARCH 10, 2015