Allahabad High Court
Netrapal Singh vs The State Of U.P. & Others on 28 January, 2010
Author: Rajiv Sharma
Bench: Rajiv Sharma
1
Court No. 24
Writ Petition No. 5369 (SS) of 1987
Netra Pal Singh ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. and others ... Opposite parties
------------
Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma, J.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
The writ petition is directed against the order of transfer dated 12.6.1987 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Barabanki, contained in Annexure No.6 to the writ petition.
While entertaining the writ petition, this Court on 15.4.1988 passed the following order:-
"Admit.
Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party No.2 as the Chief Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the opposite parties no.1 and 2. Issue notice to opposite parties no.3 to 5 to file counter affidavit within three weeks to which the petitioner may file rejoinder affidavit within ten days thereafter. List in the week commencing 4th of July, 1988. The petitioner's learned counsel has referred to the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Deputy Inspector General of Police Vs. Ram Aqbal Tewari, 1975 ALJ 223 reiterated in Writ Petition No. 5406 of 1986, Adil Rashid Khan Vs. State of U. P. and others decided on 8.8.1986. He has also refers to a Supreme Court decision in the case of State of U. P. and others Vs. Jagdeo Singh 1984 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 413. It is not disputed that the order transferring the petitioner from the post of Station House Officer to the Police Lines was not proceeded by any departmental disciplinary enquiry. It is directed 2 that within two weeks of date of service of this order on opposite party no.2, the opposite parties shall post the petitioner as a Station House Officer at some police station. It will be open to the opposite parties to apply for vacating of this order on filing counter- affidavit. ...."
From the record, it comes that the petitioner, in compliance of the interim order, referred to above, was allowed to work. It is also relevant to mention that at the time of filing writ petition, the petitioner has indicated his age as 45 years in the year 1987 and as such, by now, the petitioner has attained the age of 68 years. Therefore, for all practical purposes, the writ petition has become infructuous and accordingly, it is dismissed as infructous.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
Dt. 28.1.2010 lakshman/