Disposed

Mohd. Tabish v. District Magistrate Saharanpur and 2 Others

Allahabad HC22 Aug 2019WRIC/27171/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the demolition of his business platform due to road widening and lack of alternative options. Court directed respondent to consider petitioner’s representation within four weeks without adjudicating on merits.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.2 directed to dispose of petitioner’s claim within four weeks from date of receiving certified copy of order.

Mohd. Tabish Vs District Magistrate Saharanpur and… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 1 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27171 of 2019 Petitioner :- Mohd. Tabish Respondent :- District Magistrate Saharanpur And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jai Bahadur Singh Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶2

Heard Sri Arun Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jai Bahadur Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.2 & 3, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents and perused the record.

¶3

By means of this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has set up a claim in respect of the allotment of platform which was granted by the third respondent to carry out the business, however, the allotted platform has stood demolished on account of road widening and petitioner has not been given any other option and resultantly he is not able to continue his business and suffering both in terms of financial loss as well as loss of daily bread and butter. In this connection he has already made representation dated 29.7 2019 to the District Magistrate and also to the Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Bulandshahr, on 16.6.2019 however, no action has been taken on the representation of the petitioner, which was duly served in the office of Nagar Nigam on 18.6.2019

¶4

Learned counsel for the respondents states that he has no objection if a direction is issued to the respondent no.2 to consider the grievance of the petitioner within a stipulated period.

¶5

In view of the above, respondent no.2 is directed to dispose of claim of the petitioner as raised by him in the representation dated 16.62019 strictly in accordance with law and appropriate order shall be passed thereon within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶6

We may however, clarify that we have not adjudicated the claim of the petitioner on merits and respondents shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioner on its own merits.

¶7

With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

¶8

(Ajit Kumar,J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 22.8.2019/NS

Mohd. Tabish v. District Magistrate Saharanpur and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Tabish v. District Magistrate Saharanpur and 2 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

M/S the National Auto Supply Company Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and 2 Others

Ranjeet Vs State of U.P. and Others

Subhash Chander Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shyam Sundar Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Madhupati Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others