Dismissed

Guddu Diwakar @ Sushil Kumar v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC18 Feb 2019WRIC/5724/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged non-compliance with an order for removing encroachments. The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable as the mechanism for public nuisance removal exists under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and the petitioner should avail that remedy.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to avail the remedy provided under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

Guddu Diwakar @ Sushil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Chief Justice's Court

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5724 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Guddu Diwakar @ Sushil Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Mohan Pandey,Om Prakash Katiyar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Chief Justice Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶5

This petition for writ is preferred to have a appropriate writ, order or direction for respondent no.2 to get the encroachments removed from the public land situated over Gata Nos.417 and 423.

¶6

From the perusal of the facts stated in the petition for writ and the documents annexed thereto, it appears that removal of public nuisance as agitated in this petition or writ proceedings under Section 133 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were initiated by the City Magistrate, Farrukhabad and an order dated 12.10.2011 was passed in this regard. A challenge to the order passed on 12.10.2011 was given by the persons affected by way of filing a revision petition before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Court No.10, Farrukhabad. The revision petition also came to be dismissed on 13.8.2014.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that despite dismissal of revision petition and further orders passed by the Executive Magistrate, no compliance of the directions given by the Executive Magistrate is made. It is further submitted that at one point of time some encroachments have been removed but the same have again been made. It is not in dispute by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter relates to removal of public nuisance and appropriate orders in that regard was passed by the competent court and that order has attained finality. Executing the same, a complete mechanism is given in Chapter X of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

¶8

We do not find any just reason to entertain this petition for writ when the mechanism is already available to the petitioner for redressal of his grievances in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

¶9

The writ petition is dismissed.

¶10

The petitioner is at liberty to avail the remedy as provided under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

¶11

Order Date :- 18.2.2019 SB

¶12

( Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J) ( Govind Mathur,Chief Justice)

Guddu Diwakar @ Sushil Kumar v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guddu Diwakar @ Sushil Kumar 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

Devendra Vikram Singh Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Ram Awatar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Others

K. World Estate Private Limited Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

All Investors and Abhikarta Welfare Association Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

M/S Mdr Traders Vs State of U P and 3 Others

M/S Starway Vs State of U P and 6 Others