Disposed

Amar Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC31 Oct 2019WRIC/21336/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the writ petition seeking certiorari to quash an order rejecting the petitioners' application. Having noted a prior order directing reconsideration on merits in Writ C No. 25460 of 2008, the Court relied on that direction.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of in terms of the directions in the order dated 29.9.2015 in Writ C No. 25460 of 2008.

Amar Singh and Another Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 21336 of 2008

¶3

Petitioner :- Amar Singh And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Mishra,Chandra Kant Parekh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pradeep Kumar,Ramendra Pratap Singh,Sanjay Kumar Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

Vakalatnama filed by Sri Deepak Singh, learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioners is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri C.K. Parekh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Deepak Singh learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sanjay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 and 3.

¶7

By means of this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 3.3.2008 annexure-9 to the writ petition whereby the petitioners' application has come to be rejected by the Chief Secretary Government of U.P., Lucknow.

¶8

It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that the controversy has already come to this Court by means of various writ petitions one of them being Writ C No. 25460 of 2008 in which the order dated 29.9.2015 was passed, in identical facts and circumstances, and the order dated 16.4.2008 has come to be quashed with a direction to the respondent concerned to revisit the matter.

¶9

Sri Sanjay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the

¶10

respondents does not dispute the above factual aspect of the matter regarding the directions issued by this Court for reconsideration in Writ Petition No. 25460 of 2008. However, learned Standing Counsel has contended that the order had been passed on merits rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

¶11

In view of the fact that the matter has already been directed to be revisited in a number of orders passed by various Division Benches of this Court which has been brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit and to which no counter affidavit has been filed by the learned Standing Counsel, we dispose of this writ petition in the light of direction as contained in the order dated 29.9.2015 passed in Writ C No. 25460 of 2008.

¶12

This writ petition is disposed of in terms of the directions and observations made in the said writ petition, however, we make it clear that claim of the petitioners shall be considered in accordance with law and we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioners.

¶13

Order Date :- 31.10.2019 Nadeem Ahmad

¶14

(Ajit Kumar,J.) (Ramesh Sinha,J.)

Amar Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amar Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Navin Chand Agrawal and Another Vs State of U.P. Thur Secy. Urban Dev. Sec. U.P. Lkw. and Anr.

Smt. Nita Devi Vs State of U.P. and Others

Chandra Bhan Vs State of U.P. and Others

Ram Saran Vs State of U.P. and Others

Kulrakshak Seth and 26 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Agya Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others