Allowed

Rajesh Kumar Saxena v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 Mar 2019WRIC/24223/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that an administrative order under the Sarai Act, 1867, lacking reasons for the finding was illegal. The order dated 24.5.2018 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Additional District Magistrate to pass an order in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 24.5.2018 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Additional District Magistrate to pass an afresh order.

Rajesh Kumar Saxena Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Chief Justice's Court

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24223 of 2018 Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Saxena Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pavan Kishore,Piyush Kishore Srivastava

¶3

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abu Bakht,Alok Dubey,Bal Mukund Singh,P.K. Jain,Santosh Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Chief Justice Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶5

This petition for writ is preferred against the order dated 24.5.2018 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Protocol and Tourism), Varanasi exercising powers under Section 9 and Section 4 of the Sarai Act, 1867.

¶6

Under Section 4 of the Act of 1867, the Magistrate of a District is required to keep the register with necessary entries mentioned therein. Section 9 pertains to power to shut up, secure, clear and clean deserted Sarai in certain eventualities of complaint by the persons mentioned therein. While dealing with the case under Section 9, the District Magistrate is required to satisfy himself about all the requirements therein including nuisance that has been created due to registration of Sarai and also the other eventualities relating to maintenance and administration of Sarai. Under the order impugned, the Additional District Magistrate (Protocol and Tourism), Varanasi though has referred all the eventualities and also gave a finding but that is not supported with complete details and reasons. It is well settled that an order made that be an administrative order or quasi judicial order is required to have reasons in support of its finding as the objective travels through reasons only.

¶7

In our considered opinion, the order impugned does not carry the reasons in support of the finding, and therefore, that is not in accordance with law.

¶8

Accordingly the order dated 24.5.2018 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Additional District Magistrate (Protocol and Tourism), Varanasi to pass afresh order in accordance with law expeditiously and in any case, on or before 6.4.2019. The parties are required to remain present before the Additional District Magistrate (Protocol and Tourism), Varanasi on 11.3.2019 for further proceedings which are to be concluded on or before 6.4.2019.

¶9

The petitioner shall also present with a certified copy of this

¶10

order before the Additional District Magistrate (Protocol and Tourism), Varanasi on 11.3.2019.

¶11

The writ petition, with the aforesaid directions, stands disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 5.3.2019 Rishabh

¶13

(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.) (Govind Mathur, C. J. )

Rajesh Kumar Saxena v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar Saxena 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ragini Awasthi Vs Allahabad Bank Swaroop Nagar Branch and Another

Shiv Ram Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

M/S B.S. Trading Services Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Virendra Prasad Madhesiya Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Nirmala Rai Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Abbhan Singh Vs State of U P and 4 Others