This petition challenging a lease allotment is dismissed as the lease period expired in 2009, rendering the writ petition infructuous. No relief is granted to the prospective bidder.
None. The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous due to the expiration of the lease.
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 :- WRIT - C No. - 17096 of 2009
Petitioner :- Sunil Dwivedi Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajit Ray Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N. Trivedi,J.H. Khan,W.H. Khan
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
List revised. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
Heard Sri Gulrej Khan, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri J.H. Khan, learned counsel for the respondents no. 11 and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the allotment of lease dated 26.11.2008.
From the perusal of allotment of lease it transpires that the lease was for a peirod of three years from 2006 to 2009 which has already expired way back in the year 2009. Moreover, the petitioner has challenged the order merely because he was a prospective bidder.
In such view of the matter now no relief can be granted as the lease has already run out.
Writ petition rendered infructuous and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.11.2019 IrfanUddin
(Ajit Kumar,J.) (Ramesh Sinha,J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether relief can be granted in a writ petition challenging an expired lease allotment where the petitioner was only a prospective bidder.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sunil Dwivedi
The State Of U.P.
Ramesh Sinha
Ajit Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
