High CourtsDivision Bench(1978) 03 AHC CK 0077

Krishna Gopal Trivedi vs Deputy Director of Education, Lucknow Region and Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 23 March 1978 · Citation: (1978) AWC 811

HON’BLE JUDGES
K.S. Varma, J · Hari Swarup, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 2795 of 1976

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 394 words

Hari Swarup, J.—This is a petition for a direction to the Deputy Director of Education, Lucknow Region, Lucknow, to accord to the Petitioner sanction to prosecute Respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4, namely, Sarvasri Gyan Prakash Satsangi, Mohd. Wasi Khan and Sukh Mangal Sukul, who, during the relevant period (8-7-1975 to 31-7-1976) were the Deputy Inspectors of Schools, for having allegedly committed the offence punishable u/s 11 of the U.P. High Schools & Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 (U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971) by not paying the salary due to the Petitioner who was teacher in the R.M.P. Inter College, Sitapur. The Petitioner has alleged that he had moved an application before the Deputy Director of Education, Lucknow Region, Lucknow for granting the sanction but no orders have been communicated to the Petitioner on his application.

2.

Section 11 of the U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971, is the penal section. Sub-section (2) of Section 11 runs as under:

No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this section except with the previous sanction of the Regional Deputy Director of Education.

The Petitioner had felt aggrieved by nonpayment of salary to him which, according to him, he was entitled to get under law through the Deputy Inspector of Schools. He, therefore, seeks to prosecute them but as under law he cannot launch the prosecution without the sanction of the Deputy Director of Education he must be deemed entitled to move the authority concerned to consider his application for the sanction. No counter-affidavit has been filed to indicate as to what has happened to the Petitioner''s application. It must, therefore, be presumed that the application is still pending decision. The Deputy Director of Education, by reason of Sub-section (2) of Section 11 stands under a duty to consider the application of a person who wants to launch the prosecution for the offence contemplated by Section 11 of the Act. By failing to apply his mind and to pass necessary orders, he has failed to perform the duty cast on him bylaw. We accordingly allow this petition and issue a direction in the nature of Mandamus to the Deputy Director of Education, Lucknow Region, Lucknow to decide the Petitioner''s application in accordance with the law within a period of three months from today. Costs on parties.