Single judge rejected arguments that statutory remedy bar should not apply despite delay, refferencing S.C. precedent. Held that factual issues require appellate authority. Petitioner warned may file appeal under 1967 Rules.
Petitioner directed to file appeal before appellate authority under Rules of 1967.
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. - 16
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16829 of 2017
Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar Jain Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Gautam,Ambarish Chatterji Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sahab Tiwari,Saurabh Tiwari
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
(Oral)
writ jurisdiction this Court only decide the matters on the basis of affidavits of the parties and cannot go into the question of fact.
Order Date :- 19.12.2018 LBY
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition is maintainable in view of the availability of statutory remedy and delay in approaching the court.
Whether issues of fact raised in the writ petition can be adjudicated by the writ court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of U.P. and others Vs. U.P. Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh Samiti and othersReferred¶10
(2008) 12 SCC 675 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Pawan Kumar Jain
State Of U.P.
4 Ors.
Sangeeta Chandra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
