The High Court dismissed a premature writ petition challenging a Mandi Shop allotment result. The court found the annexed document did not reveal a result and held the petitioner's averment vague.
Writ petition dismissed and consigned to records.
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. - 1
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 30448 of 2019
Petitioner :- Pinki Arela And Another Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satya Prakash Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Satya Prakash Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 and perused the record. Sri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the rest of the respondents is not present though the matter has been called out in the revised list.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the undated result of the allotment of Mandi Shop by the Mandi Samiti and annexure 2 has been filed to demonstrate that it is a new allotment of shop of Mandi Samiti. Though such averment has been made in paragraph no.8 of the writ petition.
From the bare perusal of the annexure no.2, the document does not reveal it to be a result. In such view of the matter, the averment made in paragraph no.8 is quite vague. The writ petition is premature at this stage.
In view of the above the writ petition is dismissed, consigned to records.
(Ajit Kumar, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 23.9.2019 Gaurav
1 issue framed by the court
Whether writ petition challenging mandatary shop allotment result is maintainable given vague averment and documentary defect.
Pinki Arela
Unknown
State Of U P
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Ramesh Sinha
Ajit Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
