1

AFR
Court No. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 15459 of 2022
Petitioner :- Ravi Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- In Person
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
1. Heard Shri Ravi Kumar, the petitioner, appearing in person
before us to plead his own case; learned AGA for the State of UP and
perused the pleadings of aforesaid writ petition and the prayer sought
by the petitioner.

2. At the outset we were shocked and stunned to see the array of

the respondent parties, whereby, Smt. Mahima Jain, a serving judicial
officer, presently posted as Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C.-2, Gautam Budh
Nagar is arrayed as respondent no.2 and Smt. Kusumlata Daksh,
Bench Secretary (Peshkar) attached to the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/
F.T.C.-2, Gautam Budh Nagar as respondent no.3. This Court records
its strongest exception to such type of loose and irresponsible drafting
of the petition; whereby every man on road (the petitioner) assumes a
right to use any number of castic innuendos and pungent remarks
upon judicial officer’s integrity. Though, this issue would be dealt at
the later part of the judgment in more befitting way, but, at this
juncture we record our grave concern to such type of pratices.

3. Now coming to next issue, whereby Mr. Ravi Kumar, the

petitioner himself has drafted the petition in Hindi and sought
following prayers. At this stage we may clarify that we have got no
hesitation in admitting and entertaining the writ petition drafted in
Hindi but it must carry some substance in it. The prayers sought by
the petitioner are :

“अ – उपर्युक्त र्युाचि का में उत्प्रेषणात्मक प्रकृचि का आदेश र्युा नि दश जारी कर े नि पक्षी सं० 2
 2

3 के नि रूद्ध मकदमा ला े की अ मचि प्रदा कर े की कृपा करें।

ब- उपर्युक्त र्युाचि का में उत्प्रेषणात्मक प्रकृचि का आदेश र्युा नि दश जारी कर े हए नि पक्षी सं० 2 3
के नि रूद्ध नि भागीर्यु जाँ के आदेश पारिर कर े की कृपा करें।
स- उपर्युक्त र्युाचि का में थ्र्युों ए ं परिरस्थि23चि र्युों के आधार पर मा ीर्यु न्र्युार्युालर्यु उपर्युक्त प्रकृचि का
आदेश र्युा नि दश जारी कर े की कृपा करें।
द- उपर्युक्त र्युाचि का में र्युा ी के हक में सव्र्युर्यु आदेश र्युा नि दश जारी कर े की कृपा करें। "

4. Thus, from above it is clear that the petitioner sought

“उत्प्रेषणात्मक प्रकृचि का आदेश” which, if translated in English means “Writ
of Certiorari” was sought from us to initiate prosecution against
respondent nos.2 and 3 and second (ii) Writ of certiorari is sought to
initiate the departmental inquiry agianst respondent nos.2 and 3.

5. Without appreciating the nature and scope of writ of certiorari,

the aforesaid two prayers were sought by Mr. Ravi Kumar, the
petitioner, in person. Writ of Certiorari could be issued in cases,
“Whenever any body of persons having legal authority to determine
questions affecting rights of subjects and having the duty to act
judicially but have acted in excess of their legal authority.” The
essential features and conditions under which ‘writ of certiorari’ could
be issued have been pointed out by Hon’ble Apex Court in Province
of Bombay vs Khushaldas (AIR 1950 SC 222); T.C. Basappa vs T.
Nagappa (AIR 1954 SC 440) and Hari Vishnu Kamath vs. ahmad
Ishaque (AIR 1955 SC 233) and other most of the cases. Assessing
the guidelines laid down in above judgments and the prayer sought by
Mr. Ravi Kumar, the petitioner, we are afraid that we can not grant
the prayer i.e. to initiate the prosecution against the respondent nos.2
and 3, nor we can grant relief to initiate the disciplinary/departmental
proceeding against them.

FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF INSTANT CASE:-

6. Mr. Ravi Kumar, the petitioner is a chargesheeted accused of

Case No.191 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No.130 of 2016, u/s
498A, 323, 506, 342, 354 I.P.C. & ¾ of D.P.Act, P.S. Mahila Thana,
 3

District Gautam Budh Nagar, pending in the Court of Civil Judge

(S.D.)/F.T.C., Gautam Budh Nagar. The aforesaid petitioner, through
his counsel, has filed an Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.13544 of
2018 (Smt. Satveeri and 4 others vs State of U.P.) assailing the
legality and validity of the charge sheet as well as summoning order
dated 12.3.2018. A Bench of this Court on 20.4.2018 referred the
matter before Allahabad High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre
to enable the parties to settle down their differences and discord with
the aid and help of Mediator. While passing the order, the Bench
without entering into the merit of the case, keeping in vie the nature
of accusation made thought it proper to refer the matter for mediation,
directing the Mediation Centre to conclude the mediation process
within two months and furnish its report. The Court had also stayed
the proceedings of the Case No.191 of 2018 for the period of two
months or till next date of listing. Relevant excerpts of the order dated
20.4.2018 are quoted below for the easy reference :-

“Without going into the merits of the applicants' case at this stage,
since the matter is a matrimonial dispute between applicant no. 5 and
opposite party no.2, who are husband and wife, it is desirable that the
parties be required to attempt a re-conciliation of their differences
with the assistance of Allahabad High Court Mediation and
Conciliation Centre.
Learned counsel for the applicants is in agreement with the aforesaid
course of action.
It is directed that petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs. 15,000/-
within three weeks from today with the Mediation Centre of which Rs.
12,000/- would be paid to the opposite party no. 2 for appearance
before the Mediation Centre.
Upon deposit aforesaid being made good, the Mediation Centre will
issue notice to both the parties fixing an early date for appearance
and further proceedings before the Centre.
The Mediation Centre will submit their report within two months from
the date parties are required to first appear before the Centre.
Thereafter the case shall be listed before appropriate Bench.
 4

Till the next date of listing, the further proceedings in Case No. 191
of 2018, arising out of case crime no. 130 of 2016, under Sections
498A, 323, 506, 342, 354 IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana,
District Gautam Buddh Nagar, pending in the court of learned Civil
Judge (S.D.)/F.T.C., Gautam Budh Nagar shall remain stayed.”
Its the own admission by Mr. Ravi Kumar that the process of
mediation got aborted and no result has come out of the same.

7. The Court has occasion to summon the parent records of

aforesaid Application u/s 482 No.13544 of 2018. Curiously enough,
the matter was referred to the mediation process way back on
20.4.2018 and as per information rendered by the petitioner Mr. Ravi
Kumar, the mediation failed in the year 2018 itself but there is no
report available to this effect on the record. This is the most
disgusting feature of the case. It is now a normal practice that such
type of lapses often occur, where the reports, pleadings are never
placed on record within the reasonable time. The Registrar General,
Allahabad High Court is hereby directed to hold an inquiry to its
logical end and fix the responsibility of erring employees and
thereafter suitable departmental proceedings shall be initiated against
them for not sending the report from Mediation Centre to the second
concerned, so that the report may be placed on original records of the
case at first opportunity.

8. Now coming back to the facts of the case, it is born out from
the order-sheet of Application u/s 482 No.13544 of 2018 that during
the period of last four years, since 20.4.2018 to till date, only on two
occasions i.e. in the year 2022, following orders were passed :

(i) Order dated : 31.5.2022-

(On the application)

List in the week commencing 4.7.2022.

Interim order, if any, shall continue till next date of listing.

(ii) Order dated : 4.7.2022-

 5

List after one month.

Interim order, if any, is extended till next date of listing.”

9. Except the aforesaid two orders of 31.5.2022 and 4.7.2022

there were no orders of extending the interim order during last four
years. As mentioned above, while referring the matter to
A.H.C.M.C.C., in order to facilitate the contesting parties, the Court
in its own wisdom while passing the parent interim order has put a
cap of two months only. From October, 2018 till 31.5.2022 there was
no orders as to extending the stay order.

10. Learned A.G.A. has drawn attention of the Court to the

judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court, In re : Asian Resurfacing of Road
Agency Pvt. Ltd. and other Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Crl.
Appeal No.1375-1376 of 2010 decided on 28.03.2018, wherein the
Hon’ble Apex Court has opined:-

"Situation of proceedings remaining pending for long on account of

stay needs to be remedied. Remedy was required not only for
corruption cases but for all civil and criminal cases where on
account of stay, civil and criminal proceedings were held up. At
times, proceedings were adjourned sine die on account of stay. Even
after stay was vacated, intimation was not received and proceedings
were not taken up. It was directed that in all pending cases where
stay against proceedings of civil or criminal trial was operating, the
same would come to end on expiry of six months from today unless in
exceptional case by speaking order such stay was extended. In cases
where stay was granted in future, same would end on expiry of six
months from date of such order unless similar extension was granted
by speaking order."
11. Thus, it is contended by the learned A.G.A. that the interim
order dated 20.4.2018 was effective only up to six months. The
petitioner never bothered to get the interim order extended during this
period and he wants to enjoy the interim order for unlimited period on
certain unfounded presumption and taking legal advice.

12. On the other hand, before the Magistrate, an application was

 6

moved on 7.11.2020/20.4.2022 along with the computer generated

status report of the case, requesting the court to issue summons in the
light of intervening developments.

13. Attention was also drawn to Annexure-5 of the writ petition,

which is incomplete order-sheet starting from 01.12.2021 to
14.7.2022. From the perusal of this incomplete order-sheet it is
evident that on 19.3.2021, N.B.W. was issued by the court to ensure
his personal presence and on 20.9.2021, time was sought by the
counsel for the petitioner to furnish relevant documents on the record.
But it seems that no reference of those documents were ever
furnished, which were supposed to be furnished by the applicant/now
the petitioner herein. When the accused appeared in the Court and
apprised that the aforesaid proceeding is still pending before this
Court by means of 482 proceeding.

14. Now coming to the real crux of issue, relying over which the
petitioner has used all sorts of canards and unfounded insinuations
against the Presiding Officer.

15. Orders of two dates are relevant i.e. 11.8.2021 and 20.9.2021.
We have keenly perused both these orders. On 11.8.2021, it has been
mentioned that P.O. is on leave, accused were absent, let N.B.W. be
issued fixing 24.9.2021. However, later on, on the same date in the
presence of advocate of the accused he was directed to file certified
copy of the order-sheet of Hon’ble High Court by 20.9.2021 (though
later it was 24.9.2021), with the additional rider that accused shall
remain present in the court. It was clarified, if there is no stay order
from this Court, the accused have to appear on 20.9.2021 and apply
for bail. On the next date fixed i.e. 20.9.2021 the P.O. was on leave,
however, those documents were taken on record.

16. The petitioner Ravi Kumar has taken a strong exception of

preponing of the date from 24.9.2021 to 20.9.2021 which was in the
 7

presence and knowledge of his counsel and despite of our repeated

warnings not to use harsh expression against the Presiding officer, he
keep on using those uncalled for expressions against the learned
Presding Officer. Not only this in his pleadings in the writ petition, he
states that :-

“8- र्युह की परिर ाद संख्र्युा 191/2018 शिश ा ी ब ाम रनि कमार आनिद में निद ांक
11/08/2021 को अनिBम नि र्यु निद ांक 24/9/2021 नि र्यु की गर्युी और निब ा पक्षकारों को
सूचि निकर्युे निब ा उचि क़ा ू ी प्रनिGर्युा अप ाए निब ा नि पक्षी संख्र्युा 02 03 की निमलीभग
(षड़र्युंत्र) के ल े परिर ाद संख्र्युा 191/2018 शिश ा ी ब ाम रनि कमार आनिद की ऑर्डरशीट में
जालसाजी करके दी0 24/09/21 की जगह दी0 01/09/2021 नि र्यु कर निदर्युा गर्युी. जो निक
का ू का 2पष्ट रूप से उल्लंघ निकर्युा गर्युा है जिजससे प्रा3V अन्र्यु के नि रुद्ध धोखे से 82, 83 की
कार्यु ाही की जा सके. और जिजससे र्युाचि क ा पर ाजार्युज दबा ब ाकर जमा कर े के लिलए
नि श निकर्युा जा सके और र्युाचि क ा की 482 संख्र्युा 13544/18 महत् ही की जा सके.”

17. This is nothing but a deliberate and intentional attempt on the

part of Ravi Kumar, the petitioner to browbeat a judicial officer and
kneel down him by casting absolute canard and venom vomiting
against him. There is nothing on record to establish any nexus be-
tween the concern presiding officer and the informant, petitioner’s
opponent. This is nothing but a stinking attempt on the part of peti-
tioner to put a question mark on the integrity of the Presiding Judge,
which has to be handled with iron hands by the superior courts. All
these developments as culled out from the order sheet, was in front of
petitioner’s counsel. The court has unable to gather any conspiracy
theory between the Presiding officer and petitioner’s opponents, as al-
leged in para 8 of the writ petition. At the cost of repetition, we have
tried to persuade the petitioner Mr. Ravi Kumar not to do so but stub-
born petitioner keep on hammering his arguments and wasting the
time of the Court. The allegations made are scandalous and are capa-
ble of shaking the very edifice of the judicial administration and also
shaking the faith of common man in the administration of justice.
 8

LEGAL DISCUSSION :
18. In this regard, at this juncture it is imperative to spell out the
view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Cout in Suo Motu Contempt
Petition (Crl.) No.1 OF 2020 IN RE : Prashant Bhushan and
another, whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court categorically expressed its
concern and observed thus :

“34. Though there is a Freedom of Speech, freedom is never absolute

because the makers of the Constitution have imposed certain restric-
tions upon it. Particularly when such Freedom of Speech is sought to
be abused and it has the effect of scandalising the institution as a
whole and the persons who are part of the said institution and cannot
defend themselves publicly, the same cannot be permitted in law.
Though a fair criticism of judgment is permissible in law, a person
cannot exceed the right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution to
scandalize the institution.

35. It is apparent that the contemnor is involved in making allega-

tions against the retired and sitting Judges. On one hand, our atten-
tion was attracted by Shri Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel, to-
wards the norms of judicial conduct which also provide that Judges
cannot express an opinion in the public. The Judges have to express
their opinion by their judgments, and they cannot enter into public
debate or go to press. It is very easy to make any allegation against
the Judges in the newspaper and media. Judges have to be the silent
sufferer of such allegations, and they cannot counter such allegations
publicly by going on public platforms, newspapers or media. Nor can
they write anything about the correctness of the various wild allega-
tions made, except when they are dealing with the matter. Retired
Judges do have the prestige that they have earned by dint of hard
work and dedication to this institution. They are also not supposed to
be answering each and every allegation made and enter into public
debate. Thus, it is necessary that when they cannot speak out, they
cannot be made to suffer the loss of their reputation and prestige,
which is essential part of the right to live with dignity. The Bar is
supposed to be the spokesperson for the protection of the judicial sys-
tem. They are an integral part of the system. The Bar and Bench are
part of the same system i.e. the judicial system, and enjoy equal repu-
tation. If a scathing attack is made on the judges, it would become
difficult for them to work fearlessly and with the objectivity of ap-
proach to the issues. The judgment can be criticized. However, mo-
tives to the Judges need not be attributed, as it brings the administra-
tion of justice into disrepute. In Halsbury’s Laws of England,
Fourth Edition, Volume 9, in para 27, it is observed that the punish-
 9

ment is inflicted, not for the purpose of protecting either the Court as
a whole or the individual Judges of the Court from repetition of the
attack but for protecting the public and especially those who either
voluntarily or by compulsion are subject to the jurisdiction of the
Court, from the mischief they will incur if the authority of the Tri-
bunal is undermined or impaired. Hostile criticism of the judges or
judiciary is definitely an act of scandalizing the Court. Defamatory
publication concerning the Judge or institution brings impediment to
justice.”

19. At this juncture it would be useful to refer the decision of The

Himanchal High Court in “Court on its own Motion vs Coram”
decided on 24th August, 2018, whereby the Himanchal High Court
while thrashing the several judgment has held that :

“17. It has to be remembered that the subordinate judiciary forms the

very backbone of the administration of justice and the higher court
would come down with a heavy hand for preventing the judges of the
subordinate judiciary from being subjected to scurrilous and indecent
attacks, which scandalize or have the tendency to scandalize, or
lower or have the tendency to lower the authority of any court as also
all such actions which interfere or tend to interfere with the due
course of any judicial proceedings or obstruct or tend to obstruct the
administration of justice in any other manner.
18. No affront to the majesty of law can be permitted. The fountain of
justice cannot be allowed to be polluted by disgruntled litigants or
lawyers. The protection is necessary for the courts to enable them to
discharge their judicial functions without fear. (Ajay Kumar Pandey,
Advocate, (1998) 7 SCC 248).
19. It is well settled that litigant or for that matter even a lawyer
cannot be permitted to browbeat the court or terrorize or intimidate
the Judges as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chetak
Construction Ltd. v. Om Prakash (1998) 4 SCC 577:
"16. Indeed, no lawyer or litigant can be permitted to browbeat the
court or malign the presiding officer with a view to get a favourable
order. Judges shall not be able to perform their duties freely and
fairly if such activities were permitted and in the result
administration of justice would become a casualty and the rule of law
would receive a setback. The Judges are obliged to decide cases
impartially and without any fear or favour. Lawyers and litigants
cannot be permitted to 'terrorise' or 'intimidate' Judges with a view to
'secure' orders which they want. This is basic and fundamental and
no civilized system of administration of justice can permit it."
 10

20. These observations were subsequently, reiterated in Radha

Mohan Lal v. Rajasthan High Court (2003) 3 SCC 427.
21. Reverting back to the facts, it would be noticed that the genesis of
the entire episode appears to be the application filed by
respondent/contemnor for release of the vehicle. In case the
respondent/contemnor felt that the same was not being decided
expeditiously or the decision rendered by the Magistrate was in any
way wrong or erroneous, he could have resorted to lawful remedies
butcould not have resorted to Judge bashing and using derogatory
and contemptuous language against Judges.
22. No Judge is infallible and the order passed by him/her may or
may not be correct, but that would not give a litigant much less a
lawyer to indulge in Judge bashing. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
inHaridas Das vs. Usha Rani Banik (Smt.) and others APU
Banik (2007) 14 SCC 1 has rightly observed as under:
"1. "Judge bashing" and using derogatory and contemptuous
language against Judges has become a favourite pastime of some
people. These statements tend to scandalize and lower the authority
of the Courts and can not be permitted because, for functioning of
democracy, an independent judiciary to dispense justice without fear
and favour is paramount. Its strength is the faith and confidence of
the people in that institution. That cannot be permitted to be
undermined because that will be against the public interest.
2. Judiciary should not be reduced to the position of flies in the hands
of wanton boys. Judge bashing is not and cannot be a substitute for
constructive criticism.
xx xxxx xxxx
12. There is guarantee of the Constitution of India that there will be
freedom of speech and writing, but reasonable restriction can be
imposed. It will be of relevance to compare the various suggestions
as prevalent in America and India. It is worthwhile to note that all
utterances against a Judge or concerning a pending case do not in
America amount to contempt of Court. In Article 19 the expression
"reasonable restrictions" is used which is almost at par with the
American phraseology "inherent tendency" or "reasonable tendency".
The Supreme Court of America in Bridges v California (1911) 86 Law
Ed. 192 said:
"What finally emerges from the clear and present danger cases is a
working principle that the substantive evil must be extremely serious
and the degree of imminence extremely serious and the degree of
imminence extremely high before utterances can be punished."

20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vishram Singh Raghubanshi

 11

Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2011) 7 SCC 776 , has noted the
dangerous trend of making false allegations against judicial officers
and observed as under:
"18. The dangerous trend of making false allegations against judicial
officers and humiliating them requires to be curbed with heavy hands,
otherwise the judicial system itself would collapse. The Bench and
the Bar have to avoid unwarranted situations on trivial issues that
hamper the cause of justice and are in the interest of none. "Liberty of
free expression is not to be confounded or confused with license to
make unfounded allegations against any institution, much less the
Judiciary". A lawyer cannot associate himself with his client
maligning the reputation of judicial officers merely because his client
failed to secure the desired order from the said officer. A deliberate
attempt to scandalise the court which would shake the confidence of
the litigating public in the system, would cause a very serious
damage to the Institution of judiciary. An Advocate in a profession
should be diligent and his conduct should also be diligent and
conform to the requirements of the law by which an Advocate plays a
vital role in the preservation of society and justice system. Any
violation of the principles of professional ethics by an Advocate is
unfortunate and unacceptable. (Vide: O.P. Sharma & Ors. v. High
Court of Punjab & Haryana, (2011) 5 SCALE 518)."

21. We are now-a-days living in a democracy in its ugliest form;

where nobody has got any regard for any institution. This is unholy
and dangerous sign that all and sundry are making unfounded and
unsubstantiated allegations against judiciary in an irresponsible
manner. Making irresponsible insinuations upon the judiciary or its
officers has now become a fashion. This unholy practice has to be
whole-heartedly discouraged and deplored by every responsible
person of the society. Judiciary is one of the strongest pillars of any
healthy democracy. This fact receives more significance when
recently we have celebrated our 75th Independence Day. In order to
strengthen the foremost pillars of democracy, there should be mutual
regard. The subjects of that democracy too are expected to not
become liberal and irresponsible in their expression. The Superior
Courts are bound to protect their subordinate courts.
 12

22. This Court records its strongest anguish and concern that the
people at large are now making unwarranted and unsubstantiated and
canards against the judicial officers relying upon their whims and
capricious and making irresponsible allegations of dishonesty. The
higher courts are duty bound to save the dignity and honour of the
system in general and the individual judicial officer as well that no
person is permitted to make a sweeping and wild allegations
regarding the integrity and character of any judicial officer.

23. The apprehension of the petitioner solely springs from the

uncalled for preponing the date as has been described hereinbefore,
which according to the petitioner is tantamount to a conspiracy of the
judge and his predilection towards prosecution side. The
unsubstantiated paranoia of an ultra-conscious litigant and his
illegitimate apprehensions cannot make us to believe on them and
also cannot constitute a legitimate ground to allow the prayer sough
in the petition. The Judges are also the parts of the society just as
everybody else is and they do not live in ivory towers. The upsurge of
particular type of social crimes causes concern of the judges also who
in an important way have also to deal with such crimes in their
judicial capacity, therefore, if at some stage some judge ventilates his
exasperation at commission of certain crimes which may sometimes
appear to be revolting against the collective consents of humanity of
which the judge himself is an integral part. Such expressions must not
be mistaken to be any abdication of judicious independent thinking.
Nor should it be interpreted as an indication that such presiding
officer shall not adhere to the shorn duties as a Judge.

24. If there is some such order passed by the trial court with which
the petitioner feels aggrieved, the right course is to challenge the
same in judicial capacity in the higher courts. The propriety or
correctness of any step or order taken or adopted by any judicial
 13

officer is amenable to jurisdiction of the superior court. So far as the

allegation that the presiding officer is hand in glove with the opposite
party is concerned, our judicial institutions are robust enough not to
be swayed by any such parochial considerations. It is very easy to
make insinuation against the presiding officer like this. We do not
find any substantial record on the basis of which it may hold that
either presiding officer has been approached or the petitioner has been
nurtured holds water. The allegation as has been fastened by the
petitioner against the presiding officer is too vague and conjectural
and perhaps even irrelevant and simply cannot persuade us.

25. Submission as has been raised by the petitioner in order to

seek direction to institute an inquiry against the concerned judicial
officer is very vague and bald. There is absolutely no material to
substantiate the same. It is very difficult to accept such kind of
unsubstantiated insinuations to become a legitimate ground to initiate
any inquiry. The apprehensions as have been made by the petitioner
seems to be wholly unfounded and such kind of ultra sensitiveness
cannot constitute any legitimate ground to allow the prayer sought in
the petition.

26. We conclude that this is not a fit case where this court should
exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and as we have noted that the present petition is
filed levelling unsubstantiated allegations against the presiding officer
based on unfounded apprehensions and petitioner has wasted precious
time of the Court by filing frivolous litigation, under circumstances,
the present writ petition stands dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- to
be paid to the State Exchequer.

27. The petitioner shall deposit the cost of Rs.50,000/- with the
 14

Registrar General of this Court within a period of five months from

today. On deposit of such cost, it shall be transmitted to the account
of Allahabad High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre. If the
petitioner fails to deposit the cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand),
the Registrar General of this Court shall inform the District
Magistrate/Collector, Gautam Budh Nagar for recovery of the said
amount as arrears of land revenue, who shall after recovering the
same amount from the petitioner, transmit it to the Registrar General
of this Court for depositing in the account of Allahabad High Court
Mediation & Conciliation Centre within a further period of three
months.

28. Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned

District & Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar as well as to Ms.
Mahima Jain, Judicial Officer/Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C.-2, Gautam
Budh Nagar by the Registrar (Compliance) of this Court forthwith.

29. Let the copy of this order be circulated to every sessions

division by Registrar General of this Court.

Order Date :- 18.10.2022

M. Kumar/Sumit S

Digitally signed by :-
MANISH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad