Allowed

Hari Krishna Gupta v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2019WRIC/21234/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition with a direction recorded in the order. It remitted the pending matter to the Assistant Registrar, commanding him to decide the petitioner's representation within three months after hearing all necessary parties. The court expressly refused to examine the merits or veracity of the petitioner's claims.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands finally disposed of. The respondent is directed to decide the petitioner's representation within three months and to notice and hear all necessary parties.

Hari Krishna Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Cooperative Societies | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 21234 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Hari Krishna Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the respondentState.

¶6

The petitioner claims to be a member of the society registered under the name and style of "Gram Sewa Shiksha Parishad Vihar Bujurg, District-Kushinagar, U.P." The petitioner made a representation to the respondent No.3-Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur objecting to the elections to the committee of management of the society held on 06.10.2015.

¶7

Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.3-Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur issued notices to the committee of management of the society on his representation. The committee of management of the society has entered its opposition to the claim of the petitioner before the respondent No.3-Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur. The only prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the representation of the petitioner may be decided within a stipulated period of time.

¶8

No useful purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending.

¶9

The matter is remitted to the respondent No.3-Assistant

¶10

Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur.

¶11

A writ of mandamus is issued commanding the respondent No.3-Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur to decide the representation of the petitioner, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The respondent No.3-Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur shall notice and hear all necessary parties including the private respondent No.5 before taking a final decision in the controversy.

¶12

The Court has not gone into the veracity of the assertions made in the writ petition nor has the claim of the petitioner been judged on merits. It is for the competent authority to do so after independent application of mind.

¶13

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is finally disposed off.

¶14

Order Date :- 4.7.2019 Ashish Tripathi

Hari Krishna Gupta v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Krishna Gupta v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Centre Superintendent/Principal C.R.S. Interm. College and Anr. Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secr. Secondary Education and Anr.

Ramesh Raj Vs Anil Kumar

Pawan Kumar and Ors. Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secr. Madhyamic Shiksha Parishad and Ors.

Akshat Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Axis Institute of Pharmacy and Another Vs All India Council for Technical Education and Another

Vishu Rathaur Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others