The petitioner sought removal of alleged unauthorized encroachment via representations. The court held that statutory remedies exist under the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 and Section 133 Cr.P.C., making a writ petition maintainable. Petition dismissed.
Writ petition dismissed due to availability of statutory alternative remedies.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 66125 of 2015
Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shivam Yadav,Vivek Verma
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Order Date :- 18.12.2017 Sanjeev
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus for removal of alleged unauthorized encroachment given the availability of alternative statutory remedies.
Whether remedies under the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 and Section 133 Cr.P.C. preclude writ jurisdiction in a matter of unauthorized encroachment.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rakesh Kumar
State Of U.P.
Sudhir Agarwal
Ajit Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
