The petitioner sought a writ to expedite a non-decision on a representation alleging crop destruction due to unauthorized drainage. The court held that Section 133 CrPC provides an alternative remedy and dismissed the petition.
Writ petition dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy under Section 133 CrPC.
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. - 34
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33013 of 2019
Petitioner :- Kamrul Ziya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shahnawaz Akhtar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Order Date :- 17.10.2019 Prajapati
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition for directing expeditious decision on a representation regarding crop destruction by drainage can be maintained.
Whether an Additional District Magistrate has the capacity and authority to redress grievances regarding drainage affecting agricultural fields without invoking Section 133 CrPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kamrul Ziya
State Of U.P.
Two Others
Sudhir Agarwal
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
