Source: https://vlex.in/vid/arun-kumar-singh-vs-546089470
Timestamp: 2020-04-04 11:20:39
Document Index: 629922231

Matched Legal Cases: ['Application No. 317847', 'Application No. 317944', 'Application No. 320743', 'Application No. 317847', 'Application No. 317944', 'Application No. 320743', 'Application No. 317847', 'Application No. 317944', 'Application No. 320743', 'Application No. 320743', 'Application No. 5645']

Civil Misc. Intervener Application No. 317847 and Civil Misc. Amendment Application No. 317944 of 2012 and Civil Misc. Application No. 320743 of 2012 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51172 of 2012. Case: Arun Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others. Allahabad High Court - Case Law - VLEX 546089470
Civil Misc. Intervener Application No. 317847 and Civil Misc. Amendment Application No. 317944 of 2012 and Civil Misc. Application No. 320743 of 2012 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51172 of 2012. Case: Arun Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others. Allahabad High Court
Case Number: Civil Misc. Intervener Application No. 317847 and Civil Misc. Amendment Application No. 317944 of 2012 and Civil Misc. Application No. 320743 of 2012 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51172 of 2012
Party Name: Arun Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others
Counsel: For Appellant: N. C. Tripathi and Arun Kumar Singh (In Person) and For Respondents: Ramanand Pandey, S.C. and C.S.C.
Judges: Amitava Lala, A.C.J, and Ashok Srivastava, J.
Citation: 2013 (1) ADJ 457
Judgement Date: November 07, 2012
Amitava Lala, A.C.J.
1. The aforesaid intervener application and amendment application have been filed by the High Court Bar Association, Allahabad through its Honorary Secretary for being impleaded as respondent in the writ petition and seeking amendment of the order dated 05th October, 2012 passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition. The third application, being Civil Misc. Application No. 320743 of 2012, has been filed by the petitioner in-person seeking direction upon the authorities concerned to permit him for participation in the election of Co-operative-2012 Ghazipur by way of nomination. First of all, we shall deal with the applications filed by the High Court Bar Association due to greater importance.
2. Fact remains that a writ petition was disposed of by order dated 17th October, 2012. Since the writ petition was filed in vernacular language, the Division Bench in its order dated 5th October, 2012 accepted the persuasive value of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 24th July, 2012 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 665 of 2007 (Ritesh Kumar Trigunayat v. State of U.P. and others) in respect of supplying translated copy of affidavit in English. The operative part of the order of the learned Single Judge is as follows:
The Registry will not entertain any counter-affidavit which is in vernacular language unless translated copy thereof in English is also attached with it in future. The Joint Registrar (Listing) is directed to circulate this information to all concerned persons. Any omission in this behalf would be treated seriously.
3. The order of the Division Bench passed in the present writ petition dated 05th October, 2012 is as follows:
Leave is granted to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to file translated copy of the writ petition by next date.
It has been decided by one of Hon'ble Judges of this Court sitting Singly (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunil Hali) by order dated 24.7.2012 in Writ C No. 665 of 2007 (Ritesh Kumar Trigunayat v. State of U.P. and others) that no affidavit will be filed in Hindi and if it is filed, a translated copy will be provided for the purpose of consideration of the same. The relevant part of the order is quoted herein:
Against this background, we are of the view that the observation of the Court has persuasive value. It should be applicable in case of writ petition, criminal and civil proceedings also.
This order will be circulated by the Registrar General to all concerned and in case of necessity the Allahabad High Court Rules may be amended to that extent.
Let it appear before appropriate Bench. Subject to filing of the translated copy of the writ petition, the matter will be heard.
4. Both the orders are innocuous orders only to accommodate the Judges. Neither any intention of the Court can be there nor it was flatly refused to accept any application in vernacular language. The Court meant by the order/s that whenever any writ petition or affidavit will be filed in vernacular, a translated copy thereof in English language will be supplied to accommodate the Judges...
Criminal Application No. 5645 of 2012 and Criminal Appeal No. 412 of 2013. Case: The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs Sandeep Laxman Tirukhe and Ors.. Bombay High Court