Jagdish Kumar and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10154 of 2023 Petitioner :- Jagdish Kumar And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Srivastava,Shubham Kumar Kanojiya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶1Sri Shubham Kumar Kanojiya, Advocate states that his name is wrongly shown as counsel for petitioner while he has not filed any power on behalf of petitioner.

¶2Office is directed to delete the name of Sri Shubham Kumar Kanojiya, Advocate from the cause list.

¶3Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for State.

¶3Petitioners, who are registered clerks with the District and Sessions Judge, District Hardoi have approached this Court challenging the directions dated 12.10.2023 issued by District Magistrate, Hardoi. By the said directions, the District Magistrate, Hardoi has provided that only counsels or the parties will enter in the record room to inspect the record. The same does not contain any permission to clerk sto enter in the record room.

¶4Learned Standing Counsel raises a preliminary objection that respondent no.3 District and Sessions Judge, District Hardoi and respondent no.3 President/Secretary, Bar Association, Hardoi, are wrongly impleaded as respondents in the writ petition as they have no role to play in the entire dispute. So far as the District Magistrate is concerned, the Collectorate has separate office which has nothing to do with the district court.

¶5The District Magistrate is entitled to regulate entry of authorised persons in the record room. There is no law under which any role is required to be played by the clerks in the record room. Inspection of records can only be done by the authorized lawyers of clients or by the clients personally to whom it is permitted in the impugned directions. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned directions dated

12.10.2023. Hence, no interference with the impugned directions is called for.

¶6Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 18.11.2023 Arti/- [Manish Kumar,J.] [Vivek Chaudhary,J.] High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench