UP Chief Secretary Summoned: May 5, 2017 Order of the Allahabad High Court

1. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. 36
Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 21733 of 2008
Parvez Parwaz & another vs. State of U.P.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Srivastava, J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order on Crl. Misc. Restoration/Recall Application No. 428513 of 2015 along with Crl. Misc. Delay
Condonation Application No. 428510 of 2015.
1. Heard Sri S.F.A. Naqvi, learned counsel for the applicants-petitioners, Sri Vimlendu Tripathi,
learned Officiating Government Advocate assisted by Sri Ashish Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the
State.
2. On 24.3.2017, an order was passed by this Court on the present restoration/recall application
which is quoted hereinbelow:-
"Order on Crl. Misc. Recall/Restoration Application No.428513 of 2015
1. Heard Sri S.F.A. Naqvi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ashish Pandey, learned A.G.A. for
the State and perused the material brought on record.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners and petitioner no1 is the informant of
the case.
3. It appears from the order sheet of the present writ petition that the present writ petition came up
as fresh matter before another Bench of this Court on 3.12.2008, on which date following order was
passed by another Bench of this
Court, which is quoted here-in-below:-
"List on 15th December, 2008.
Learned AGA may seek instructions in the matter in the meanwhile"
4. On 15.12.2008, another Bench of this Court passed an order which is quoted here-in-below:-
"Learned AGA prays for and is allowed 10 days' time for filing a counter-affidavit.
List in the second week of January, 2009, to enable the learned A.G.A. to file the counter-affidavit."
5. On 29.4.2009 the present writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution by another Bench
of this Court, which is quoted here-in-below:-
"List revised.
No one has appeared on behalf of the petitioner to press this petition.
The petition is accordingly dismissed for want of prosecution.
Interim order, if any, is also vacated."

2. 6. It further transpires from the record that a Crl. Misc. Restoration Application No.127836 of 2010
along with Crl. Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.127833 of 2010 dated 28.4.2010 was filed
by the petitioners for restoring the said writ petition.
7. On 20.3.2015, another Bench of this Court passed an order which is quoted here-in-below:-
"Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.
The learned A.G.A. prays for and is granted two weeks time to file counter affidavit explaining
therein as to why the delay in filing the restoration application may not be condoned.
List on 10.4.2015"
8. On 10.4.2015 another Bench of this Court passed an order which is as under:
Learned A.G.A. submits that it appears that the order dated 20.3.2015 could not be communicated.
He has noted the order today.
List immediately after three weeks."
9. On 13.7.2015 another Bench of this Court passed an order which is quoted here-in-below:-
Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for and is allowed two weeks' time to file a supplementary
affidavit disclosing therein whether the investigation in the matter has been completed or is still
pending.
List this case on 30.7.2015."
10. It appears that on 30.7.2015 another Bench of this Court rejected the aforesaid Delay
Condonation Application as well as Restoration Application by passing the following order, which is
as under:-
Crl. Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.127833 of 2010
List has been revised.
None appears to press this application.
Accordingly, this application is rejected for want of prosecution.
Criminal Misc. Restoration Application No. 127836 of 2010.
Since the Delay Condonation Application has been rejected for want of prosecution, this application
is also rejected. "
11. After dismissals of the aforesaid Delay Condonation Application as well as Restoration
Application filed by the petitioners, the present Recall/Restoration Application along with the Delay
Condonation Application dated 13.12.2015 has been filed in the present petition for recalling of the
Court's order dated 30.7.2015, which was directed to be listed with previous papers by another
Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.12.2015 which is pending disposal.
12. On 6.12.2016, this Court passed an order which is quoted here-in-below:-
"Heard S.F.A. Naqvi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ashish Pandey, learned A.G.A for
the State.

3. Learned A.G.A is directed to inform this Court about the status of the investigation in this matter by
the next date.
List this matter on 20.12.2016."
13. The matter again came up before this Court on 13.1.2017 and this Court passed the following
order:-
"Case is passed over on the illness slip of Sri S.F.A. Naqvi, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Sri Irshad Husain, learned A.G.A. is present on behalf of the State."
14. On 10.3.2017 this Court passed the following order which is quoted as under:-
Sri S.F.A. Naqvi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ashish Pandey, leraned A.G.A. for the
State are present.
Sri S.F.A. Naqvi, learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that he has received counter affidavit
from the State, wherein it has been stated that the sanction to prosecute the accused persons in the
present case from the Competent Authority is still awaited but it appears from the record that the
counter affidavit which has been filed by the State is not on record.
Sri Ashish Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State is directed to inform this Court on which date he
has filed the said counter affidavit.
List the matter in the next cause list."
15. Today, the matter is listed in the Daily Cause List at Serial No.71 for disposal of the present
Delay Condonation Application along with the Restoration Application.
16. It appears from the record the present writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on
29.4.2009 by another Bench of this Court and to recall the said order, a Crl. Misc. Restoration
Application No.127836 of 2010 along with Crl. Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.127833 of
2010 was filed and the same was dismissed by another Bench of this Court on 30.7.2015 and the
present Recall/Restoration Application along with Delay Condonation has been filed to recall the
order dated 30.7.2015 passed by another Bench of this Court in Crl. Misc. Restoration Application
No.127836 of 2010 and Crl. Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.127833 of 2010 to its original
number, but there appears to be no prayer made in the present Recall/Restoration Application for
recalling of the order dated 29.4.2009 passed by this Court by which the present writ petition was
dismissed for want of prosecution and restoring the writ petition to its original number. Hence, the
prayer made in the present Recall/Restoration Application appears to be defective one.
17. Sri Naqvi, learned counsel for the petitioners states that there appears to be three affidavit of
compliance have been filed by learned AGA for the State , i.e.,(i) dated 24.4.2015 of Sri Bhushan
Upadhyay, (ii) Dated 17.12.2016/23.12.2016 of Sri Anand Narain Singh, Inspector C.B.C.I.D.,
Gorakhpur Sector Gorakhpur & (iii) Dated 20.2.2017/ 7.3.2017 of Sri Anand Narain Singh,
Inspector C.B.C.I.D., Gorakhpur Sector Gorakhpur and further a supplementary affidavit dated
18.12.2015 has also been filed by the petitioners in the present matter.

4. 18. As per the Officer report, an affidavit of compliance dated 23.12.2016 numbered as 401875 of
2016 and other affidavit of compliance dated 7.3.2017 numbered as 80688 of 2017 have been placed
on record and the same are available on record, but the affidavit of compliance which has been
referred by learned counsel for the petitioners, i.e., dated 24.4.2015 of Sri Bhushan Upadhyay and
supplementary affidavit dated 18.12.2015 filed by the petitioners are not on record.
19. Learned counsel for the petitioners has made submissions on merits of the case but to consider
the said submissions and adjudicate upon the merits of the case, it is first necessary to dispose of the
Crl. Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.428510 of 2015 along with the present Crl. Misc.
Recall/Restoration Application No.428513 of 2015 but the prayer made in the said
Recall/Restoration Application appears to be a defective one. The petitioners may amend the prayer
of the present Recall/Restoration Application by the next date, if so desires.
20. As the affidavit of compliance of Sri Bhushan Upahdyay dated 24.4.2015 filed by the learned
AGA as referred by the learned counsel for the petitioners and supplementary affidavit filed by the
petitioners dated 18.12.2015 are not on record. Hence, Office is directed to trace out the same and
place it on record.
21. List the matter after three weeks for disposal of the present Delay Condonation Application
along with the present Recall/Restoration Application."
3. The matter again came up before this Court on 28.4.2017 on which date following order was
passed:-
"An amendment application as well as supplementary affidavit have been filed today by learned
counsel for the petitioners which are taken on record.
Heard Sri S.F.A. Naqvi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ashish Pandey, learned A.G.A.
assisted by Sri Imran Saiyed, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on 24.3.2017, the matter was heard by this Court on
the recall/restoration application as well as on merit but due to some defect in the prayer of
recall/restoration application, amendment was required in the prayer of recall/restoration
application, hence he has filed the amendment application today. He prays that the same may be
allowed.
Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and the averments
made in the amendment application, the amendment application filed in Crl. Misc.
Recall/Restoration Application No. 428513 of 2015 is hereby allowed.
Office is directed to allot regular number to it.
Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to make necessary amendment in the said
recall/restoration application during the course of the day.
Considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
From a perusal of the record, it appears that the matter of sanction regarding prosecution of the

5. accused persons is pending before the State Government and the question of grant of sanction for
prosecution is to be decided by the Head of the State Government, who himself is a prime accused
in the present F.I.R. lodged by petitioner no. 1.
As the said question which has crop up in the matter before this Court requires proper adjudication,
learned counsel for the parties are directed to assist the Court in the matter on the next date fixed by
placing legal proposition of law in the matter.
Put up the matter for further argument on 4.5.2017. "
4. Today, Sri Vimendu Tripathi, learned Government Advocate has opposed the restoration
application on the ground that the reason given for condoning the delay in filing the present
restoration application by the applicants-petitioners is wholly vague, hence the same may be
dismissed on this ground alone. In support of his argument, he has placed reliance on the judgment
of the Apex Court in the case of Basawaraj and another vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer
reported in (2013) 14 SCC 81 and further an unreported judgment of Division Bench of this Court
in the case of Ram Sharan Singh son of Laxmi Singh vs. Union of India decided on 17th September,
2007.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants-petitioners vehemently opposed the said contention of learned
Government Advocate and submitted that though the present petition was dismissed for want of
prosecution on 29.4.2009 by this Court but there is no fault of the applicants-petitioners as his clerk
could not mark the same in the cause list on account of which he could not appear in the matter on
the said date, hence the petition was dismissed for want of prosecution due to inadvertent mistake
of his clerk. He submits that on 27.4.2010 when the applicants-petitioners visited Allahabad and
contacted him to know the status of the case, he made an enquiry on which it came in his knowledge
that the present case was dismissed for want of prosecution on 29.4.2009 prior to it they had no
knowledge about dismissal of the present petition. A copy of the computer enquiry report has been
annexed as Annexure-1 to the affidavit filed in support of the application. He submits that as soon
as the applicants-petitioners came to know about the dismissal of the present petition for want of
prosecution, they filed a restoration application on 29.4.2010. He submits that there is no deliberate
delay in filing the restoration application which was filed by them on 29.4.2010 which was ordered
to be listed with previous papers on 3.5.2010 by the Court. He submits that the said restoration
application no. 127836 of 2010 along with delay condonation application no. 127833 of 2010 was
also dismissed for want of prosecution on 30.7.2015 by this Court as his clerk again could not mark
the same, hence he could not appear on the said date to press restoration application.
6. The applicant-petitioner no. 1 came to know about the order dated 30.7.2015 of this Court only
on 12.12.2015 when he contacted his counsel, who on enquiry about the status of the case from the
website of this Court came to know about dismissal of the restoration application. On coming to
know about the dismissal of the same, the applicant-petitioner no. 1 came to Allahabad on
13.12.2015 and moved the present restoration application along with delay condonation application
which was filed in the Registry of this Court on 18th December, 2015.
7. On 22.12.2015, the present restoration application along with delay condonation application was
directed to be listed with previous papers by the Court.
8. Learned counsel for the applicants-petitioners submits that the petition and restoration
application of the applicants-petitioners were rejected because of inadvertent mistake on the part of
his clerk and there has been no deliberate negligence on the part of the applicants-petitioners for
pursuing the petition and due to the act of the counsel and his clerk, the applicants-petitioners

6. cannot be made sufferer. He submit that the nature of offence stated in the F.I.R. which has been
registered as case crime no. 2776 of 2008 under Sections 153, 153A, 153B, 295, 295B, 147, 143, 395,
436, 435, 302, 427, 452 I.P.C. and 7 C.L.A. Act, police station Cantt., District Gorakhpur against the
accused persons is the offence against the society as innocent people were killed in the communal
riots at Gorakhpur on 27.1.2007 because of inflammatory speeches given by the accused persons
against whom the petitioner no. 1 has lodged the present F.I.R. There are 28 other criminal cases for
different offences registered in District Gorakhpur against the accused persons by the different
persons besides the present case. He pointed out that out of 29 cases including the present case in
20 cases charge-sheet has been submitted, in six cases final report has been filed and in three matters
are under investigation. He submits that out of three cases in which investigation is pending in two
cases permission for prosecution has been sought for by the State Government, hence the delay
condonation application filed in support of the restoration applications may be allowed by this
Court for doing substantial justice.
9. Considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the
restoration application as well as delay condonation application filed in support of the same.
10. It appears from the record that the present petition has been filed by the applicants-petitioners in
the year 2008 and on 3.12.2008, learned A.G.A. was directed to seek instructions in the matter.
Thereafter the same was dismissed for want of prosecution on 29.4.2009 by this Court and a
restoration application along with delay condonation application has been filed by the applicants-
petitioners on 29th April, 2010 after coming to know about the dismissal of the petition for want of
prosecution on 27.4.2010. It is very painful to note that the restoration application which was filed
by the applicants-petitioners along with delay condonation application was also dismissed for want
of prosecution on 30.7.2015 by this Court and the reason given by the learned counsel for the
applicants-petitioners that due to inadvertent mistake of his clerk, who could not mark the case
when it was listed, appear to be a casual one. Such a casual approach of learned counsel for the
applicants-petitioners in pursuing the case of the applicants-petitioners cannot be appreciated and
the applicants-petitioners may not be put at fault for the same. When the said conduct was pointed
out to the applicants-petitioners' counsel Sri Naqvi, he could not give a satisfactory reply but
apologies for the same on his behalf as well as on behalf of his clerk and prays that the Court may
consider the gravity of the case and allow the restoration application along with delay condonation
application exercising its discretion in the matter to do the substantial justice.
11. The case laws which have been cited by the learned counsel for the State, i.e., Basawaraj &
another (Supra) of the Apex Court on the issue of condoning the delay shows that the facts and
circumstances of said case is distinguishable to that of the instant case as the said case pertains to
civil appeal in which a statutory period of limitation has been prescribed and in the said case, the
Apex Court has held that the party acted with negligence, lack of bona fides or inaction then there
cannot be any justification for condoning the delay and the High Court has rightly dismissed the
restoration application along with delay condonation application and upheld the judgment of the
High Court.
12. From a perusal of the said judgment it is further evident that the Apex Court has also laid down
the proposition of law for condoning the delay in paras-11, 12, and 14 of the aforesaid judgment and
has held that the discretion to condone the delay to be exercised judiciously based on the facts and
circumstances of each case, 'sufficient cause' cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or
lack of bona fides is attributed to the party even though limitation may harshly affect rights of a
party but it has to be applied with all its rigor when prescribed by statute, courts have no choice but
to give effect to the same. Result flowing from statutory provision is never an evil, inconvenience
not ground for interpreting a statute, Courts do not have power to extend period of limitation based
on equitable grounds, If courts start substituting period of limitation then it would amount to
legislation, which is impermissible. It further observed by the Apex Court that the Court starts

7. condoning the delay where no sufficient cause was made out by imposing conditions then that
would amount to violation of statutory principles and showing utter disregard to Legislature.
13. The Apex Court observed that in Section-5 of the Limitation Act, the delay can be condoned
when 'sufficient cause' is shown-'Sufficient cause' means, it held that distinction between 'sufficient
cause' and 'good cause'-it held, 'sufficient cause' means a cause for which a party could not be
blamed for his absence. A party should not have acted with negligence or lack of bona fides- Degree
of proof is less in case of good cause whereas it is high in case of "sufficient cause.
14. Moreover, the Apex Court in the case of Rafiq and another vs. Munshilal and another reported
in AIR 1981 SC 140 and in the case of Smt. Lachchi and others vs. Director of land records and
others while dealing with the similar issue, the Apex Court held that a litigant cannot suffer for the
fault of his counsel. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the former case observed as under:-
"What is the fault of the party, who having done everything in his power expected of him, would
suffer because of the default of his advocate.... The problem that agitates us is whether it is proper
that a party should suffer of the inaction, deliberate omission, or misdemeanour of is agent..... We
cannot be a party to an innocent party suffering injustice merely because his chosen advocate
defaulted."
15. Thus, the proposition of law settled from the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court, it is
apparent that the Courts are left to its discretion to condone the delay. It is further clear from the
aforesaid judgments that while condoning the delay, the discretion of the Court to condone the
delay has to be exercised judicially based on the facts and circumstances of each case.
16. In the instant case, there appears to be no negligence on the part of the applicants-petitioners
nor lack of bona fides or inaction is reflected and only on account of the fault on the part of their
counsel and his clerk, the petition was dismissed for want of prosecution for which he has filed a
restoration application as soon as he came to know from his counsel which was also dismissed for
want of prosecution due to the mistake of clerk of their counsel. The applicants-petitioners are not
at fault, hence they may not be allowed to suffer because of the fault on the part of their counsel and
his clerk, hence the cause shown is sufficient..
17. The case laws which have been cited by the learned Government Advocate referred above on
the facts and circumstances cannot be made applicable to the present case but the proposition of
law laid down in it is not disputed.
18. Moreover, we find that the F.I.R. which has been lodged by the applicant-petitioner no. 1 shows
that the incident is of the year 2007 where communal riots broke in the city of Gorakhpur in which
several innocent persons have lost their lives and were injured. It is a crime against the society and
the persons responsible for it have to be brought to book, hence the prayer made in the present
petition has to be adjudicated on its merit by this Court.
19. In view of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Rafiq and another (Supra) and the
proposition of law laid in the case of Baswaraj and another (Supra) and the gravity of the offence
alleged in the F.I.R. of the present case and in the interest of justice, we are of the opinion that the
present delay condonation application along with restoration application filed by the applicants-
petitioners deserve to be allowed and is, accordingly, allowed.
20. The order dated 30.7.2015 passed by this Court is hereby recalled. Further the restoration
application no. 127836 of 2010 along with delay condonation application no. 127833 of 2010 dated
28.4.2010 is restored to its original number and the order dated 29.4.2009 passed by this Court is
also hereby recalled.

8. 21. The writ petition is restored to its original number.
(Umesh Chandra Srivastava, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Dated:- 4.5.2017
Shiraz.
Court No. 36
Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 21733 of 2008
Parvez Parwaz & another vs. State of U.P.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Srivastava, J.
1. The petition is restored to its original number today under the order of this Court passed in Crl.
Misc. Restoration Application No. 428513 of 2015 along with Crl. Misc. Delay Condonation
Application No. 127836 of 2010, hence the Court proceed to hear the petition on merits.
2. Heard Sri S.F.A. Naqvi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Vimlendu Tripathi, learned
Officiating Government Advocate assisted by Sri Ashish Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. It is submitted by Sri Vimlendu Tripathi, learned Officiating Government Advocate that he
requires some written instructions in the matter as after perusing the record of the case which is
available to him, he has some doubt whether the Draft Final Report (hereinafter referred to as 'the
DFR') which has been prepared by the C.B.C.I.D. which has investigated the matter has been sent
for its approval on 9.4.2015 to the higher officials and its approval is still awaited. In this regard, he
has drawn the attention of the Court towards para-8 of the affidavit of compliance filed on
24.4.2015 in the present petition by the Investigating Officer, namely, Chandra Bhushan Upadhyay
Gorakhpur Sector Gorakhpur. The para-8 of the affidavit of compliance is quoted hereinbelow:-
"8. That on the basis of statements of the witnesses and cogent, ample and sufficient evidences, the
investigating officer has prepared the DFR and sent the same on 9.4.2015 to the higher officials for
its approval and the same is still pending."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Naqvi has vehemently opposed the said contention of
learned Government Advocate and has stated that DFR which has been prepared by the C.B.C.I.D.
after investigation has been approved by the concerned Committee and the matter is pending only
for grant of prosecution sanction before the State Government. In this regard he has drawn the
attention of the Court towards paras-5 to 9 of the affidavit of compliance dated
17.12.2016/23.12.2016 by Sri Anand Narain Sngh, the Investigating Officer of the C.B.C.I.D.
Gorakhpur Region Gorakhpur which are quoted here-in-below:-
"5. That it is most respectfully submitted that after completion of the investigation, the investigating
officer (C.B.C.I.D.) of criminal case in question has prepared a D.F.R. (draft final report) and
submitted before the State Government for its approval as well as prosecution sanction under the
provisions of 153-A of I.P.C. on 28.05.2015.
6. That it is most respectfully submitted that thereafter, the State Government has sent the D.F.R.
alongwith its approval to the office of Principal Secretary (LAW)/Legal Remembrancer,
Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow for granting prosecution sanction under section 153-A of
I.P.C.

9. 7. That it is most respectfully submitted that the office of the Principal Secretary (LAW)/Legal
Remembrancer, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow has called the officer of C.B.C.I.D. to
place facts of the case before the constituted committee on 27.07.2016 and 28.08.2016.
8. That it is most respectfully submitted that on 28.08,2016, one Mr. Om Prakash, Inspector,
C.B.C.I.D. Gorakhpur Sector, Gorakhpur had appeared before the committee and place his version
regarding criminal case in question.
9. That it is most respectfully submitted that the prosecution sanction by the State Government is
still awaited."
5. He submitted that from para-6 of the above affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer, it is
evident that the State Government has sent the DFR along with its approval to the Office of
Principal Secretary (Law) Legal Remembrance Government of U.P. Lucknow for granting
prosecution sanction under section 153-A I.P.C. He strongly refuted the contention of learned
Government Advocate that the D.F.R prepared is still to be approved by the competent committee
and further drawn the the attention of the Court towards para-8 of the affidavit of compliance in
which it has been stated that the Investigating Officer of C.B.C.I.D. Sri Om Prakash had appeared
before it on 28.8.2016 and placed his version regarding the criminal case in question. Moreover,
from para-9 of the said affidavit, it is crystal clear that sanction of prosecution is still awaited.
6. After examining the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it appears from the
record that the contention of learned Government Advocate which he has submitted on the basis of
affidavit of compliance dated 24.4.2015 filed by the Investigating Officer Chandra Bhushan
Upadhyay, is difficult to be accepted in view of the avernment made in paras-6 to 9 of the affidavit
of compliance dated 17.12.2016/23.12.2016 by filed Sri Anand Narain Singh which has been
referred above regarding the fact that DFR prepared by the Investigating Officer of the C.B.C.I.D. is
pending before the State Government for its approval till date or the grant of prosecution sanction
of the accused mentioned in the F.I.R. is still awaited.
7. Hence, in order to clarify the said facts, which have been mentioned in the aforesaid two
affidavits of compliance filed by the two Investigating Officers of the C.B.C.I.D. Gorakhpur Sector,
Gorakhpur, we direct the Chief Secretary of the State of U.P. to appear in person before this Court
on the next date fixed along with entire record of the present case including the report of
investigation conducted by the C.B.C.I.D. and DFR prepared by it and further file his personal
affidavit clarifying the said facts so that the matter may be disposed of at the earliest as the alleged
incident has taken place in the year 2007 and the petition is pending since 2008. The matter is
serious in nature as 29 criminal cases including the present case which have been registered in the
district Gorakhpur where communal riots took place in the year 2007. It is stated that out of the said
29 cases in 20 cases charge-sheet has been submitted and in 6 cases final report has been filed and 3
cases are under investigation out of which in 2 cases grant of prosecution sanction is awaited from
the State Government.
8. It is a little bit disturbing that Sri Vimlendu Tripathi, the learned Government Advocate at this
stage has raised this issue when the matter is being heard by this Court on regular intervals but the
learned A.G.A. for the State, who were appearing before the Court in the matter, has not raised any
such issue which has been raised by him today though the Court had fixed today the day for
deciding the issue which has been framed by it vide order dated 28.4.2017.
9. This further raises a question that how serious is the State and its agencies in pursing the matter

10. which is of grave concern in which innocent persons have lost their lives, many were injured and
properties of innocent persons were set ablaze in the communal riots which broke in the city of
Gorakhpur in the year 2007 and their families are waiting for justice at the doors of the Court and
almost nine years have elapsed and the matter is struggling on such technical issues.
10. List the matter again on 11th May, 2017 for further arguments of the parties.
11. Office is directed to issue a certified copy of this order to the learned Government Advocate
free of cost for its compliance.
12. The Registrar General is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the Chief Secretary of
the State of U.P., Lucknow for its compliance.
13. It appears that the affidavit of compliance filed on 24.4.2015 by the State has not been placed on
record by the office in compliance of this Court's order dated 24.3.2017.
14. Office is directed to trace out the same and place it on record.
15. A copy of the said affidavit of compliance has been supplied by learned Government Advocate
today in the Court which is taken on record.
(Umesh Chandra Srivastava, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order dated :-4.5.2017
Shiraz.