Dismissed

Indra Sen v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC15 Jul 2019WRIC/22235/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed this writ petition as not maintainable. The petitioner sought directions against a private individual regarding property possession, which falls outside the scope of writ jurisdiction guided by judicial precedents restricting court interference in private property disputes.

What did the court decide?

None granted as the petition was held not maintainable.

Indra Sen Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 32

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22235 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Indra Sen Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

¶6

This petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

¶7

" (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the application of petitioner dated 4.2.2019 as well as 17.6.2019, otherwise petitioner shall suffer irreprable loss and injury."

¶8

A perusal of record shows that the petitioner is seeking a direction against a private person namely Savitri Devi who is allegedly interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the property in dispute, however, she has not been impleaded as a respondent.

¶9

This Court in Writ Petition No. 50033 of 2015 (Jitendra Bahadur Singh Vs. State of UP & others) has held that the police and administrative authority must not interfere in the inter se dispute

¶10

between two private parties in respect of immovable properties. In this regard, learned Standing Counsel has placed a Government Order dated 16.9.2015 issued by the Chief Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Government in pursuance of the order dated 4.9.2018 passed by this Court wherein it has been stated as follows:

¶11

"In this behalf, I am directed to say that while complying with Hon'ble High Court's order dated 04.09.2015 in letter & spirit, it be ensured that such matters of immovable property pending between the private parties, whose cases are pending before competent court or where Hon'ble Courts have passed interim order, no administrative order should be passed on miscellaneous applications. In future, if any such matter comes to the notice of the Government, then it shall be construed strictly and strict penal action shall be taken against the officers guilty for the same." [English Translation.

¶12

Since the petitioner, in substance, is seeking relief against a private person, the present writ petition is not maintainable.

¶13

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the petitioner, if so advised, may take proceedings before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

¶14

Order Date :- 15.7.2019 MLK

Indra Sen v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indra Sen v. State of U.P. and 2 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

M/S Ashirwad Hospital and Research Centre and Another Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Rashid Ali Vs State of U P and 6 Others

Yogendra Singh Vs State of U.P. through Min. of Cooperative, Lucknow and 6 Others

Seema Begum and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mahaveer Prasad Rawat Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Irshad and 3 Others Vs State of U P and 4 Others