Court No. - 28 Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 677 of 2010 Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Shukla S/O Padmakar Shukla, Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home & Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- H.S. Tiwari Respondent Counsel :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Kumar Singh,J.
Hon’ble Yogendra Kumar Sangal,J.
It is expedient to have counter affidavit in this matter indicating there in as to
who was responsible for construction quality of the building in question and
on whose recommendations, the payment has been made.
Let it be filed on behalf of the State within ten days. Rejoinder affidavit, if
any, may be filed within seven days, thereafter.
List on 23.02.2010.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, however submits that petitioner was
Incharge but being a Teacher in the institution he did not have any technical
knowledge. He was simply to operate the joint account with the Gram
Pradhan. It further comes out from the relevant office order by means of
which he was made Incharge (Annexure No. 1) that the copy of this order was
endorsed to the J.E., RES with the direction that in his supervision, the
construction work has to be made. Therefore, it is said that J.E. being a
technical man should be held responsible for the poor quality of construction,
if any, of the building.
In view of the above, as an interim measure, it is provided that till the next
date of listing, the petitioner shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case crime
number, unless and until cogent and credible evidence is collected against him
during investigation, subject to his full cooperation in the investigation which
shall go on.
Order Date :- 28.1.2010
Kaushal