The main legal point established in the judgment is that a judicial officer cannot act in his own cause and must not exercise jurisdiction without authority, as it would be malafide, arbitrary, and void.

BINOD KUMAR ROY, M. P. SINGH, JJ.

( 1 ) WHETHER the respondent who is a member of Higher Judicial Service of our State, for non-declaration of results of Intermediate Examination, 1997 of his own son could have initiated suo motu judicial proceedings in his own Court, proceeded to pass orders for production of answer Books of his son and held guilty the Educational Authorities of the State after holding an enquiry of committal of alleged offences under Indian Penal Code, Section 340 Cr PC and even guilty of committal of Contempt of Court Act and decided to make reference thereunder ? And whether this Court will be justified in interfering with his acts and orders/directions under article 226 of the Constitution of India? are the core questions which have cropped up for adjudication in this writ proceedings. The Prayers :

( 2 ) THE petitioners - the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Director of Education (Secondary)-cum-Chairman, U. P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. , allahabad-have come up with following prayers :

(i) to quash directions issued by the respondent Sri R. S. Gupta, H. J. S. , Special Judge (Dacoity affected Areas), Jalaun at Orai to petitioner No. 2 as contained in his letter dated 6. 6. 1997 (copy appended as Annexure (ii) to let him know about the result (Division, Marks obtained) of the Intermediate Examination, 1997 of is son named Alok Kumar Gupta bearing Roll No. 1094995 and clarify the relevant facts concerning the expression of the word c as published in the newspaper amar Ujala (ii) to quash his another direction as contained in letter No. 469/97, dated 29. 7. 1997 (copy appended as Annexure-2) to immediately produce answer books of his aforementioned son on 18. 8. 1997 which are required in Case No. 50 of 1997 (State v. Laxmi Prasad Pandey and Ors.)pending in his Court; (iii) to command the respondent not to proceed any further in case No. 50 of 1997 aforementioned; (iv) to transfer that case from his Court to any other Court of competent jurisdiction, (v) to issue any other writ, order or direction, which may be deemed fit and proper; and (vi) to award cost of this litigation. The Facts pleaded :

( 3 ) THE case of the petitioners is as follows :

(i) Alok Kumar Gupta, the son of respondent had appeared as a private candidate in the intermediate Examination of 1997 for which he had applied from Acharya Narendra Deo Inter college, Orai, Jalaun; (ii) The Transfer Certificate accompanying his application mentioned him as having failed in the 1996, Intermediate Examination. His Roll Number was neither disclosed nor was furnished. (iii) Vide letter No. 461, dated 28. 2. 1997, the petitioner No. 2 asked him to furnish details in that regard; (iv) As he did not furnish the same his result was shown as c in the Newspaper which meant group of those examinees whose results had been cancelled due to various reasons; (v) Thereafter Respondent No. 1 sent the letter as contained in Annexure-1; (vi) The department enquired the matter. It was revealed that Alok Kumar Gupta had appeared from Gonda District, which fell within the territorial jurisdiction of the Divisional Office at varanasi and from his result sheet it was apparent that he had failed being unsuccessful in four subjects- Hindi, English, Civics and History out of five subjects, the 5th being Art Design in which he could pass. Vide letter No. 627, dated 4. 7. 1997 he was intimated to obtain his marks sheet which he received. (vii) Thereafter the petitioners came to know for the first time on receipt of the letter dated 29. 7. 1997 as contained in Annexure-2 sent by the respondent that he has instituted a criminal case bearing Case No. 50 of 1997 (State v. Laxmi Prasad Pandey and Ors.) in his own Court; (viii) A special messenger was sent to receive copy of the case but it was not handed over on the ground that the records-are in the personal custody of the respondent. (ix) The impugned directions are wholly without jurisdiction, illegal, arb