Dismissed

Sundari Shoba and 21 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC31 Jul 2019WRIC/6627/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged road construction on their land via writ petition. Court held disputed factual questions preclude writ adjudication under Article 226, dismissing the petition and directing further recourse to approprirate authorities.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted. Petition disposed of; petitioner advised to approach appropriate authority/common law court.

Sundari Shoba and 21 Others Vs State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 32

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6627 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Sundari Shoba And 21 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶5

This writ petition has been filed, inter alia, for the following reliefs;

¶6

"(i) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 3 not to construct any road through the plot no. 1717ka, 1718ga and 1857 situated in Mauja Mukundpur and plot no. 90 and 91 situated in Mauja Rajapur, Chaubara, Tehsil Soroan, District Allahabad without adopting due process of law.

¶7

(ii) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to remove their material from the petitioners land forthwith.

¶8

(iii) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 and 2."

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶10

By order dated 24.7.2019, learned Standing Counsel was directed to seek instructions in the matter. On the basis of instructions received, learned Standing Counsel stated that the public road in question is 15 years old and is being merely repaired. He further submitted that no construction is being made by the authorities concerned on the land belonging to the petitioner.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioners has rebutted the contentions made by the learned Standing Counsel.

¶12

A perusal of the record shows that disputed questions of fact are involved in the present matter which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of its powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, it is open for the petitioner, if he is so advised, to approach the the appropriate authority/common law court to ventilate his grievances, if any.

¶13

With this observation, this writ petition stands finally disposed of. Order Date :- 31.7.2019 vinay

Sundari Shoba and 21 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sundari Shoba and 21 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Mohammad Ashraf Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Kamlesh Rastogi @ Kalawati Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Bireshwar Das and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sankatha Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 12 Others

Jitendra Kumar Saxena Vs State of U P and 2 Others