Disposed

Sri Ram Narain Agarwal and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC14 Jan 2020WPIL/9/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition without expressing opinions on merits, directing the State of U.P. to decide the petitioners' pending representation within six weeks via a speaking order, and granted liberty to file a fresh representation with this judgment.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no.3 to decide pending representation within six weeks by speaking order; liberty to file fresh representation with certified copy of the order.

Sri Ram Narain Agarwal and 4 Others… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 9 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Sri Ram Narain Agarwal And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Swapnil Kumar,Sudhanshu Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dharmendra Singh Chauhan

¶4

Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 5 and Sri D.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent no.6, and perused the material brought on record.

¶6

This petition has been filed with the following prayers :-

¶7

"I) Issue a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to stop the vehicles and permit the entry of the vehicles of the residents of Vrindavan, District Mathura as well as those of their visitors into the city.

¶8

II) Issue a writ in order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from interfering in the right of the residents for plying their vehicles/cars while entering the city of Vrindavan or at any other place/point within the city of Vrindavan.

¶9

III) Issue any other suitable writ in order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶10

IV) Award costs of the petition to the petitioners."

¶11

Upon perusal of the averments made in the petition and the documents appended thereto, it transpires that for the redressal of their grievance raised by them in this writ petition, the petitioners have already filed a representation before respondent no.3 on 17.8.2007, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-3 to the petition, but the same has not been decided till date.

¶12

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that a suitable direction be issued to respondent no.3 to decide the petitioners' representation pending before him within a specified period..

¶13

In view of above, we dispose of this writ petition without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, with liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh representation before respondent no.3 raising all the grounds therein, which have been taken by him in this petition alongwith the certified copy of this order.

¶14

In case any such representation is filed by the petitioners before

¶15

respondent no.3 within a period of four weeks from today, he shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law by a speaking and reasoned order as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of such representation by the petitioners before him.

¶16

Order Date :- 14.1.2020 Shalini

Sri Ram Narain Agarwal and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ram Narain Agarwal and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 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

Krishna Nand Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Lachhi Ram Dharmshala Public Trust Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gurjent Singh Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Nirmla Vs State of U.P. and Another

Devi Shankar Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Jamil Ahmad Shah Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others