Disposed

Ishwar Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC15 Oct 2019WRIC/32783/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that the petitioner could avail an alternative remedy. It directed the petitioner to approach the Regulatory Commission within four weeks, with the grievance to be reviewed within six weeks, before rendering the writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach the Regulatory Commission within four weeks; grievance to be reviewed within six weeks; petition disposed.

Ishwar Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32783 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Ishwar Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Prakash Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar,Pankaj Kumar Ojha

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri V.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.3 and 4, Sri Pankaj Kumar Ojha, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.5, Sri Rahul Malviya, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.

¶6

By means of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the District Magistrate exercising power under Section 3 of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006.

¶7

The petitioner's grievance is that one of the two contradictory reports has been relied upon the District Magistrate in passing the order, which is not justified. Thus according to him there is patent error in passing the order by the Districts Magistrate.

¶8

Per contra the argument of learned counsel for the Corporation is that statutory remedy available to the petitioner against the order passed by the District Magistrate under Section 3 of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 vide sub Rule (3) of Rule 3 as the order passed by the District Magistrate is revisable one by the Regulatory Commission constituted under Rule 1 of reforms Act, 1999.

¶9

In such view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the petitioner can avail alternative remedy. It is offered that in case petitioner approaches the Commission within the period of four weeks from today, the grievance of the petitioner will be looked into by providing appropriate opportunity to the petitioner within the further period of six weeks. With the above observations and directions, the petition stands disposed of.

¶10

(Ajit Kumar, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

¶11

Order Date :- 15.10.2019 Gaurav

Ishwar Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ishwar Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Ram Nath Vs Zonal Manager L.I.C. Varanasi and Another

Union of India Thru G.M. Diesel Locomotive and Another Vs Central Information Commission New Delhi and Others

Sri Thakur Rangji Mahraj Virajman Mandir Vs State of U.P. and Others

Abdul Basid Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Hari Ballabh Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Othersd

Virendra Kumar Jaisawal and 58 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others