In a criminal miscellaneous writ petition, the petitioner sought a direction to respondent no. 2 to act expeditiously on a representation dated 26.12.2017. The court held there were no grounds for interference and rejected the prayer.
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. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1472 of 2018
Petitioner :- Balveer Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mr Anil Kumar Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Sri Mr. Anil Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikas Sahai, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to direct the respondent no. 2 to take action in pursuance to the representation dated 26.12.2017 expeditiously within limited period.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed this petition with respect to the prayer-II made in the writ petition for deciding his representation dated 26.12.2017.
After having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, we do not find any good ground for interference in the matter. It is, accordingly, rejected.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 24.5.2018 A.P. Pandey
1 issue framed by the court
Whether this court should direct respondent no. 2 to take action under a representation dated 26.12.2017.
Balveer Singh
State Of U.P.
2 Others
Ramesh Sinha
Dinesh Kumar Singh-I
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
