State Of U.P, Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. Of Home, & Anr. Petitioner v. Sunder Singh Solanki, Allahabad High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Nazir Ahmed Vs. King Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253	That things must be done in the manner provided by the Act or statute and not otherwise.	Relied on to emphasize that procedures provided by governing orders must be followed; deviations are not permissible.
Deep Chand Versus State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 1527	That things must be done in the manner provided by the Act or statute and not otherwise.	Applied to support the requirement that the process laid down in office memoranda/circulars be followed in constituting and conducting committees.
Patna Improvement Trust Vs. Smt. Lakshmi Devi and others, AIR 1963 SC 1077	That things must be done in the manner provided by the Act or statute and not otherwise.	Used to reinforce the principle that prescribed procedural steps cannot be bypassed by administrative authorities.
State of U.P. Vs. Singhara Singh and other, AIR 1964 SC 358	That things must be done in the manner provided by the Act or statute and not otherwise.	Invoked to support strict adherence to the mandated procedure for out-of-turn promotion consideration.
Barium Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Company Law Board, AIR 1967 SC 295	That things must be done in the manner provided by the Act or statute and not otherwise.	Referred to underline that administrative action must follow prescribed procedures.
Chandra Kishore Jha Vs. Mahavir Prasad and others, 1999 (8) SCC 266	That things must be done in the manner provided by the Act or statute and not otherwise.	Used to reinforce procedural regularity requirements for administrative decision-making.
Delhi Administration Vs. Gurdip Singh Uban and others, 2000 (7) SCC 296	That things must be done in the manner provided by the Act or statute and not otherwise.	Applied to stress adherence to prescribed administrative process in departmental decisions.
Dhanajay Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2001 SC 1512	That things must be done in the manner provided by the Act or statute and not otherwise.	Relied upon for the same procedural principle in administrative decision-making.
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai Vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and others, 2002 (1) SCC 633	That things must be done in the manner provided by the Act or statute and not otherwise.	Referred to emphasize mandatory compliance with prescribed procedures.
Prabha Shankar Dubey Vs. State of M.P., AIR 2004 SC 486	That things must be done in the manner provided by the Act or statute and not otherwise.	Invoked to support the conclusion that prescribed procedure must be followed.
Ramphal Kundu Vs. Kamal Sharma, AIR 2004 SC 1657	That things must be done in the manner provided by the Act or statute and not otherwise.	Used to reinforce the proposition of procedural conformity.
Taylor Vs. Taylor, (1876) 1 Ch.D. 426	That things must be done in the manner provided by the Act or statute and not otherwise.	Adopted to underline historicly recognized principle of following prescribed procedures.
Nika Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 2077	That things must be done in the manner provided by the Act or statute and not otherwise.	Referred for the same procedural mandate.
Ramchandra Keshav Adke Vs. Govind Joti Chavare and others, AIR 1975 SC 915	That things must be done in the manner provided by the Act or statute and not otherwise.	Used to reinforce the principle of procedure compliance.
Chettiam Veettil Ammad and another Vs. Taluk Land Board and others, AIR 1979 SC 1573	That things must be done in the manner provided by the Act or statute and not otherwise.	Applied to stress compliance with prescribed administrative process.
State of Bihar and others Vs. J.A.C. Saldanna and others, AIR 1980 SC 326	That things must be done in the manner provided by the Act or statute and not otherwise.	Invoked to underscore procedural mandamus for administrative action.
A.K. Roy and another Vs. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1986 SC 2160	That things must be done in the manner provided by the Act or statute and not otherwise.	Referred to for the requirement of following mandated procedure.
State of Mizoram VS. Biakchhawna, 1995 (1) SCC 156	That things must be done in the manner provided by the Act or statute and not otherwise.	Applied to support the procedural rule insisted upon by the Court.
J.N. Ganatra Vs. Morvi Municipality, AIR 1996 SC 2520	That things must be done in the manner provided by the Act or statute and not otherwise.	Referred to illustrate the same procedural constraint on authorities.
Babu Verghese and others Vs. Bar Council of Kerala and others, AIR 1999 SC 1281	That things must be done in the manner provided by the Act or statute and not otherwise.	Used to reinforce the need for following prescribed forms and procedures by authorities.
Dr. N.C. Singhal Vs. Union of India, 1980 (3) SCC 29	Executive power under Article 162 can issue orders regulating service conditions; office memoranda can create civil rights as part of service conditions.	Applied to hold that the office memorandum dated 3.2.1994 has force of law and that executive power may regulate service conditions in the absence of statute.
Katyani Dayal Vs. Union of India, 1980 (3) SCC 245	Executive power under Article 162 can issue orders regulating service conditions.	Relied upon to support that administrative orders can fill gaps in service regulation.
C. Rangaswamiah Vs. Karnataka Lokayukta, 1998 (6) SCC 66	Executive power is co-extensive with legislative power; executive orders may have effect unless inconsistent with statute.	Used to affirm that office memorandum has binding effect unless overridden by statute.
Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1966 SC 1942	Support for the proposition that executive action under constitutional power can regulate service conditions.	Referred to buttress the proposition that executive orders can create service rights.
B.N. Nagarajan Vs. State of Mysore, 1971 (1) SCC 607	Executive power may regulate service matters; executive orders can have binding force.	Invoked to support binding nature of office memoranda regulating promotion.
State of A.P. Vs. Lavu Narendranath, 1981 (4) SCC 296	Executive orders can regulate service conditions; executive power's scope.	Used to strengthen the conclusion that the office memorandum is authoritative for promotion policy.
State of M.P. Vs. Kumari Nivedita Jain, 1991 (4) SCC 243	Executive orders may fill gaps in regulation of services; such orders are effective unless contrary to statute.	Referred to support the view that the office memorandum has the force of law governing out-of-turn promotions.
State of Sikkim Vs. Dorjee Tshering Bhutia	Executive authority may issue orders regulating service conditions under constitutional power.	Applied to confirm that the office memorandum stands as a valid executive prescription for promotions.
Smt. Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India and another, AIR 1978 SC 597	State action must be just and fair (principle of fairness in administrative action).	Invoked to require that DGP and State discharge obligations regarding out-of-turn promotions in a just and fair manner.
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress, AIR 1991 SC 101	State action should be just and fair.	Applied to emphasize fairness and justice in administrative decisions affecting service conditions.

Hon'ble Vedpal, J.:- [delivered by Justice Devi Prasad Singh] 1.Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is against the Tribunal's judgement by which Tribunal had allowed the claim petition directing the petitioner to reconsider the claim of claimant respondent for out of turn promotion from the post of Sub-Inspector to the post of Inspector. Brief matrix of the case is discussed hereinafter. 2.The claimant respondent is Sub Inspector of U.P. Police was Incharge of Special Operation Group Police (in short hereinafter referred as SOG). On 17.4.2000 after receiving information with regard to arrival of two terrorist/hardened criminal two teams were constituted to apprehend them. One headed by claimant respondent and the other by Shri P.C.Sharma, near Green Park in Kanpur Nagar. Both the team entered into encounter with the terrorist. The team led by the claimant respondents Shri S.S.Solanki had successfully prevented to run away one of terrorist during encounter. Thus one out of two terrorist was killed. An FIR dated 18.4.2000 was lodged by Shri P.C.Sharma. In the FIR role of team led by the claimant respondents has been narrated as under:- @Hindi@ 3.For the aforesaid act of bravery SSP Kanpur Nagar recommended for out of turn promotion. The recommendation of SSP Kanpur was placed before the Committee consisting of DIG of the Range and two other officers. The Committee was agreed with the recommendation of SSP Kanpur and sent the proposal to Director General of Police for out of turn promotion through IG Zone. IG Zone being agreed with the proposal had forwarded the same to the State Government. 4.The report of the Committee was not accepted by DGP on 1.8.2006 in terms of report of State Level Committee. Feeling aggrieved with the order passed by the DGP, the claimant respondents had filed Writ Petition No. 7212 (SS) of 2006 by order dated 17.1.2007. High Court had quashed the decision of Committee dated 5.7.2006 along with consequential order dated 1.8.2006 passed by the DGP and directed to reconsider the claimant's case for out of turn promotion. 5.It was held by this Court that the Committee in fact not considered the recommendation made by the Sponsoring Authority and there is no discussion with regard to reasoning given in recommendation in favour of claimant. The Committee had ignored the material on record. The High Court held that though there should be subjective decision by the authority but it shall be necessary that a subjective decision should be based on objective consideration of the valid material which was not done. Relevant portion from the judgement and order dated 17.1.2007 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 7271(SS) of 2006 filed with the petition is reproduced as under:- "Upon going through the report of the Committee dated 5-7-2006, it is found that the Committee has, in fact mattered the other incident as contained in the F.I.R. and has, thereafter, recorded that the aforesaid incident related to a consolidated effort of the police party and not to the petitioner alone. However, from the perusal of the entire report, it is found that the Committee has, in effect not at the considered the recommendations made by the sponsoring authorities and there is no discussion with respect to the reasoning given in the recommendations in favour of the petitioner and as to why the said reasoning did not bring the petitioner in the zone of eligibility. The Committee has ignored the various contention of learned Standing Counsel that there should be subjective decision of the authority, is no doubt correct, however, it is also necessary that the formulation of subjective decision has to be based on objective consideration of valid materials Such objective materials have not been considered whole recording its decision of not granting out of turn promotion to the petitioner." 6.Though the observation made by High Court (supra) seems to reveal that the claimant should have been given out of turn promotion but while reconsidering the matter with regard to out of turn promotion the Committee had again rejected the respondent's case vide order dated 3.10.2007. The order dated 3.10.2007 was impugned before this Court in a writ petition no. 7908 (SS) of 2007. However, the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy vide order dated 23.5.2008 with liberty to approach U.P. Public Services Tribunal. Hence the claimant respondents had approached the Tribunal and whereby the Tribunal had allowed the claim petition by impugned order directing to reconsider the matter. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner State had approached this Court under writ jurisdiction. 7.While assailing the impugned order it has been submitted by learned Standing counsel that the finding recorded by the authority is not open for review as it is the collective wisdom of police team and not the individual daring act of the claimant respondents resulted in killing of dreaded criminal namely Deepak Dhobi. It has been submitted by learned Standing counsel that tribunal had exceeded jurisdiction by re-appreciating the evidence and Director General of Police was competent to constitute the Committee to consider the claimant's case by increasing its strength being head of the Department. 8.On the other hand, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that under the Government order only three member Committee should have been constituted and Director General of Police lacks jurisdiction to modify government order by his/her own circular. Submission is that the Committee should have been constituted strictly in terms of government order. Learned counsel for the respondents Shri A.P.Singh further submitted that the Committee constituted by the DGP had not recorded the point of disagreement keeping in the view the recommendation forwarded by Sponsoring authorities. In the absence of any reason given by Committee disowning the observation made by the sponsoring authority Committee has been failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it in terms of government order. 9.The office memorandum dated 3.2.1994 provides that for outstanding bravery an officer may be given out of turn promotion from the post of Sub-Inspector to Inspector/Company commander. The office memorandum dated 3.2.1994 is reproduced as under:- ? ??? () ?-? - ???(?)/-?-??/?? ? ?, ?? ? ?? ?? ??? ? ?? ??/?? ?? ??, ?? ?? ??, ?? ?? ? ? ?? ?? ?? /? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??? ???- (?) ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ? ? ?? ? ??? ?? ?? /? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? (?) ?? ?? ???, ? ? ?? /? ?? ?? ?? ??? ?? ? ???, ? ?? ?? ?? ? (?) ?? ?? ??? ? ?? ??/?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? , ?? ?? ?? ? ?? ??? ?? ? ?? ?? ?? ?? ? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??? ??? (?) ?? ??? ?? ? ?? ?? ?? ? ? ?? ?? (?) ?? ?? ?? ???-??? ?? ?? ??? ?? ?? ?? (?) ?? ? ? ?? - ???(?)/-?-??/?? ? ?? ?? ?? ? ?? ? ? ?? - ?. ?, ?, ?. ??? ?, ? , ? ?. ?, ? ?. ??-?, ? ?. ??? ?, , ?. ?? 10.A perusal of the order shows that the police personnel may be given out of turn promotion for his/her act of bravery whereby terrorist or dreaded criminal is killed or apprehended with risk of life. Out of turn promotion shall be given with prior permission of Director General of Police and promotional order shall be passed by appointing authority. 11.Inspector General of Police vide circular dated 10.2.1994 (Annexure-6) had drawn the attention of DGP towards various government orders regulating the out of turn promotion. The IG Personnel informed that the recommendation received by the DGP shall be placed before the three member Committee consisting of Additional DGP Law and Order, I.G. Karmic and DIG Visesh Apradh. The circular of I.G. Personnel has been further modified by Inspector General Administration vide his letter dated 5.10.1995 (Annexure-7) with regard to constitution of three member Committee. However, while issuing the letter dated 5.10.1995 the I.G. Administration informed that one more person shall be included i.e. I.G. Law and order. 12.It appears that instead three members Committee; four members Committee was constituted which was approved by the DGP himself consisting of I.G.Karmik, IG Crime, IG Establishment, I.G. Law and Order. From the report of Committee, filed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition it appears that DGP himself had participated and signed report of the Committee with his due approval. 13.The Committee constituted under DIG while considering the recommendation of SSP Kanpur had found the respondent's effort as an act of bravery while recommending for the out of turn promotion. But the Committee under DGP had found it as collective action. The inference drawn by the Committee under DGP rejecting the petitioner's claim had made following observation in its report dated 6.5.2009 (Annexure-8). It shall be relevant to reproduce relevant portion from the report of the Committee:- "?? ? ?? ?? ?? ? ?? ?? ??-?- ?? ? ?? ??? ? ?? ?? ? ??? ? ? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?? ?? ? ?? ??? ?? ?? ? ?? ??? ? ?? ? ??? ?? ?? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?? ? ??. ? ?? ?? ??? ??? ?? ? ?? ??? ?? ?? ?? ? ? ? ? ?? ?? ?? / ?? ?? ?? ??? ? ?? ??? ?? ? ?? ?? ??? ?? ??? ?? ? ?? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ? ? ?? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ' ?? ' ?? ? ? ?? ??? ??, ?? ?? ?? ? ??? ? ? ?? ?? ? ?? ?? ??? ?? -???(?)/?-??-?-??/?? ?-?-?? ?? ?? ?? ??? ??? ??? ? ? /? ?? ?? ? ?? ?? ? ??? ? ? ? ? ?? ?? ?? ? ?? ? ??? ??? ?? ? ? ?? ?? ??? ??? ( ) ( ) ( ???) (??? ???) ??? ? ??? ??? ?? ??? ???, ???/?? ? ? ? ? ( ???) ??? ? 14.From the perusal of the inference drawn by the Committee it appears that the action of the claimant respondent has not been treated to be daring one since he suffered minor injury and a finding has been recorded that it was the collective act of police team. Ordinarily every time when teams are constituted to apprehend the dreaded criminal or terrorist, actions are collective but while discharging collective obligations the importance of leadership abilities and individual effort plays important role like in the present case, where during the course of encounter the claimant respondent courageously at the stake of his life when two of his police constables were injured forwarded his steps towards the dreaded criminal to apprehend him. The office memorandum regulating out of turn promotion (supra) provides that the act of police personnel must be of outstanding bravery where a famous or dreaded criminal is killed or apprehended. It has not been disputed that the criminal killed, namely Deepak Dhobi was a dreaded one and famous criminal and police was in his search. The District Level Committee though found that because of outstanding bravery and immediate action of claimant respondents the criminal was killed but State Level Committee had recorded a finding that it was a collective act. 15.State Level Committee while making observation with regard to collective action had not taken into account of the fact that the claimant respondent was the leader of one team which has encircled the criminal from eastern side. During encounter when two constables namely Ravindra Singh and Bachchu lal were injured with intention to apprehend the terrorist or dreaded criminal, the claimant respondents at the risk of his life with immediate presence of mind arrived near the dreaded criminal to apprehend him. In response to which the criminal fired. In such alarming situation Shri Solanki fired with his AK 47 rifle and consequence thereof one of the criminal died. It may be noted that the other team was failed to apprehend or kill the criminal on western side, in consequence he fled. 16.The fact narrated in the FIR (supra) shows the individual presence of mind and bravery of claimant respondents which was taken into account by District Level Committee while forwarding recommendation for out of turn promotion but the State Level Committee had not taken into account this fact which is given in the FIR. In case, claimant respondent would have not advanced himself to apprehend the criminal at the cost of his life some person would have been died or injured or the culprit would have been run away. It was the leadership quality and immediate action on the part of claimant respondents with the assistance of S.O. Shri Sharma one of the dreaded criminal died in the encounter. Needless to say that to possess leadership quality and act accordingly while fighting with the criminal more so with intention to save the life of other police personnel is individual quality and is an act of bravery. 17.The State Level Committee had not considered the recommendation of District Level Committee in its real prospective after considering letter and spirit of the recommendation of Sponsoring Authority. In the event of disagreement the State Level Committee should have recorded reason instead of recording vague finding in its report. Reason of disagreement should have been recorded by the State Level Committee which has been not done. The tribunal had rightly held that State Level Committee has been failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it. 18.The next limb of question decided by the Tribunal is with regard to Constitution of Committee. In pursuance to office memorandum dated 3.2.1994 the other order issued by the State Government from time to time. I.G.Personnel had issued a circular for constitution of three members Committee to consider the proposal sent by Sponsoring Authority. However, from the report of the Committee it appears that DGP himself was present and approved the report along with four members Committee. The Photostat copy of the report of the Committee filed with the writ petition shows that the DGP also signed the report as approving authority. The report of the Committee seems to be influenced by presence of Director General of Police. The Committee seems to not acted independently even assuming that three members Committee could have been made four members by DGP but there was no occasion for DGP to present in the meeting of the Committee and sign it as approving authority. Approval or disapproval should have been done independently by the DGP after receipt of report of the Committee. 19.It is very well settled law that the thing should be done in the manner provided by the act or statute and not otherwise vide Nazir Ahmed Vs. King Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253; Deep Chand Versus State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 1527, Patna Improvement Trust Vs. Smt. Lakshmi Devi and others, AIR 1963 SC 1077; State of U.P. Vs. Singhara Singh and other, AIR 1964 SC 358; Barium Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Company Law Board AIR 1967 SC 295, (Para 34) Chandra Kishore Jha Vs. Mahavir Prasad and others, 1999 (8) SCC 266; Delhi Administration Vs. Gurdip Singh Uban and others, 2000 (7) SCC 296; Dhanajay Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2001 SC 1512, Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai Vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and others, 2002 (1) SCC 633; Prabha Shankar Dubey Vs. State of M.P., AIR 2004 SC 486 and Ramphal Kundu Vs. Kamal Sharma, AIR 2004 SC 1657. Taylor Vs. Taylor, (1876) 1 Ch.D. 426; Nika Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 2077; Ramchandra Keshav Adke Vs. Govind Joti Chavare and others, AIR 1975 SC 915; Chettiam Veettil Ammad and another Vs. Taluk Land Board and others, AIR 1979 SC 1573; State of Bihar and others Vs. J.A.C. Saldanna and others, AIR 1980 SC 326, A.K.Roy and another Vs. State of Punjab and others; AIR 1986 SC 2160; State of Mizoram VS. Biakchhawna, 1995 (1) SCC 156; J.N.Ganatra Vs. Morvi Municipality Morvi, AIR 1996 SC 2520; Babu Verghese and others Vs. Bar Council of Kerala and others, AIR 1999 SC 1281; and Chandra Kishore Jha Vs. Mahavir Prasad (1998) 8 SCC 266. 20.Power conferred by Article 162 of the Constitution of India empower government to issue executive instruction to lay down service condition like out of turn promotion. Office memorandum is meant to encourage the police officers for the dedication to their duty while serving the public. It is an encouragement to keep them ready to fight with the antisocial element. It is an award for their good conduct, outstanding bravery in apprehending or killing the criminals. In the absence of any statutory provision the order issued under Article 162 of the Constitution of India creates civil rights as the part of condition of service. 21.While issuing office memorandum in pursuance to power conferred by Article 162 State may fill up the vaccum and regulate the service condition to meet out the requirement of service. Accordingly, office memorandum dated 3.2.1994 has got force of law. The executive power is co-extensive with the Legislative power. The only restriction is if there is an Act or Rule it will have got primacy over executive order. The existence of statutory provision or law is not precondition for exercise of executive power vide 1980 (3) SCC 29, Dr. N.C.Singhal Vs. Union of India (Para 18, 21); 1980 (3) SCC 245, Katyani Dayal Vs. Union of India; 1998 (6) SCC 66, C.Rangaswamiah Vs. Karnataka Lokayukta (Para 19), 1955 (2) SCR 225, Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur Vs. State of Punjab(pages 236-237); AIR 1966 SC 1942, B.N. Nagarajan Vs. State of Mysore, 1971 (1) SCC 607, State of A.P. Vs. Lavu Narendranath, 1981 (4) SCC 296, State of M.P. Vs. Kumari Nivedita Jain and 1991 (4) SCC 243, State of Sikkim Vs. Dorjee Tshering Bhutia. 22.While dealing with the matter with regard to out of turn promotion for the act of bravery by police personnel the State government or Director General of Police cannot act in a arbitrary manner. State or its authorities have to discharge their obligation in a just and fair manner. Smt. Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India and another, AIR 1978 SC 597 and Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress, AIR 1991 SC 101. The State action should be just and fair. 23.In view of above, the Director General of Police or the State Government have to discharge their obligation with regard to out of turn promotion in just and fair manner keeping in view the letter and spirit of office memorandum dated 3.2.1994. It is unfortunate that this is the 4th round of litigation with regard to claimant respondent's fight for justice. State Government and Director General of Police must be conscious to the fact that no finding may be recorded contrary of contents of FIR as it shall be fatal to prosecute other accused who may be arrested by Investigating agency in due course of time. 24.It shall be gross injustice on the part of Director General of Police or its Committee not to extend due right to the brave, honest and dedicated police personnel for their act of bravery or discharge of duty in terms of office memorandum (supra). 25.The observation made by this court in the first round of litigation (supra) should have awaken the State Government/D.G.P. with regard to claimant's right for out of turn promotion but seems to not happened. Once the State Government provides or makes provision for out of turn promotion then every police personnel shall be entitled for its benefit for his/her act of bravery keeping in view the letter and spirit of office memorandum. The denial of such benefit shall discourage and demoralize the police personnel. 26.The claimant respondent seems to be entitled for out of turn promotion. The impugned judgement and order passed by the U.P. Public Service Tribunal does not seem to suffer from any impropriety or illegality.

27. Writ petition being devoid of merit, dismissed. Petitioner is directed to consider the case of claimant respondent for out of turn promotion expeditiously say within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Service Bench No. - 982 of 2010

State Of U.P, Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. Of Home, & Anr. Petitioner v. Sunder Singh Solanki

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's (State) Arguments — as recorded

Respondent's (Claimant) Arguments — as recorded

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

State Of U.P, Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. Of Home, & Anr. Petitioner v. Sunder Singh Solanki

Comments