Disposed

Kalyan Health Care Products v. Union of India and 2 Others

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2019WRIC/38770/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought registration for Ayush Medicine procurement but had already filed an application with the relevant authority. Court dismissed the writ as premature and directed the authority to decide the application expeditiously by a reasoned order within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as premature; direction given to newly added respondent to decide the application filed by petitioner expeditiously within six weeks by a speaking order.

Kalyan Health Care Products Vs Union of India and 2… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38770 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Kalyan Health Care Products Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajiv Sharma,Abhishek Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Hemendra Kumar Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to implead "Mission Director, U.P. Rajya Ayush Society Nabiullah Marg, Lucknow" as respondent no. 4.

¶6

Heard Sri Rajiv Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Krishna Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 while Additional Solicitor General of India has appeared for respondent no. 2 and Sri Hemendra Kumar Mishra for newly added respondent no. 4.

¶7

This writ petition has been filed by petitioner with the following prayer :

¶8

i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to register/enlist the petitioner for procurement of Ayush Medicine under Ministry of Ayush, Govt. of India.

¶9

ii) issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶10

iii) award cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner.

¶11

It has been pointed out by Sri Hemendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the newly respondent no. 4 that for the redressal of his grievance raised by the petitioner in this writ petition, he has already filed an application before the respondent no. 3 on 23.7.2019 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) and hence this writ petition is not maintainable and the same may be dismissed as premature.

¶12

Sri Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 to the extent that he has moved an application before the respondent no. 3 with the same prayer which has been made by him in this writ petition.

¶13

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of this writ petition with the direction to the newly added respondent no. 4 to decide the application filed by the petitioner before the respondent no. 3 strictly in accordance with law by a speaking and reasoned order as expeditiously as possible preferably within a further period of six weeks from the date of filing of certified copy of this order.

¶14

Order Date :- 3.12.2019

¶15

Kalyan Health Care Products v. Union of India and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalyan Health Care Products v. Union of India 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

Gaya Prasad Vs Phool Kali

Silver Moon Knox Vs State of U.P. through Secy. Intermediate Edu and Others

Bhagwati Prasad Vs Director of Social Welfare Deptt. U.P. Lucknow and Anohter

Arjun Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dilip Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Rohit Singhal Vs Surabhi Agrawal @ Aradhana Agrawal and Another