Petitioner sought mandamus for personal safety. The High Court found the writ petition premature as no approach to the concerned authority for redressal was made, leading to dismissal at this stage.
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. - 32
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23337 of 2019
Petitioner :- Natthu Lal Yadav Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nand Lal Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
This writ petition has been filed, inter alia, for the following relief:
"i. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to look into the matter and provide guard to the petitioner so that the life of the petitioner and his family may not be put in danger."
From perusal of the record, it transpires that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition without approaching the the concerned authority for redressal of his grievance and as such the writ petition appears to be premature.
In view of the above, we do not see any justification to make any interference in the matter and the writ petition, being premature, is hereby dismissed at this stage.
Order Date :- 19.7.2019 MLK
Natthu Lal Yadav
State Of U P
Shashi Kant Gupta
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
