Disposed

Bhoopesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC23 Jul 2019WRIC/23535/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought release of an Ultrasound machine and renewal of clinic registration. Court did not enter into merits but directed petitioner to file a representation with the District Magistrate within two weeks for consideration and disposal within one month via a reasoned order.

What did the court decide?

Directed District Magistrate to consider petitioner's grievances via a representation filed within two weeks and pass a reasoned order within one month.

Bhoopesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 32

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23535 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Bhoopesh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Sri Ashok Khare (Sr. Advocate) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

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

¶5

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, inter alia, for the following relief:-

¶6

"i. issue a writ, order or direction of suitable nature commanding the Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur Dehat and the District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat to immediately release/deseal the Ultrasound machine of the petitioner on the basis of the order dated 16.5.2019 passed by the Medical Council U.P. (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) within a period to be specified by this Hon'ble Court;

¶7

ii. a writ, order or direction of suitable nature commanding the respondents to forthwith accord consideration to renewal of the certificate of registration of Ultrasound clinic/Imaging Center of the petitioner at district Kanpur Dehat under the provisions of Pre-conception and Pre-natal diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 within a period to be specified by this Hon'ble Court ."

¶8

Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, after some arguments, confined his prayer to the extent that the District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat may be directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner within the time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the prayer so made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that in case the petitioner files a representation, ventilating all his grievances, before the District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat (Respondent no. 4) within two weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order, the same shall be considered and decided, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law by means of a reasoned and speaking order, preferably within a period of one month

¶11

from the date of receipt of the said representation.

¶12

It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the case.

¶13

With the above observation/direction, this writ petition is finally disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 23.7.2019 Pkb/

Bhoopesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhoopesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Krishna Lal Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Rajendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Shaheed Narendra Kumar Ayurvedic Medical College and R.K.M.S. Charitable Hospital Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Dharm Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bhagwat Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Naryan Prakash Mata Vs Regional Manager Regional Office Canara Bank and 3 Others