Disposed

Pradyuman Tiwari and 2 Ors. v. State of U P and 3 Others

Allahabad HC2 Nov 2020WRIA/5746/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition where the petitioner sought expedited adjudication of pending internal appeals against termination. The court issued a mandamus directing the Home Guard authority to decide the appeals via speaking orders within three months.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus issued directing the respondent authority to decide the petitioners' appeals by speaking orders within three months.

Pradyuman Tiwari and 2 Ors. Vs State of U P and 3… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5746 of 2020 Petitioner :- Pradyuman Tiwari And 2 Ors. Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bholeshwar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶4

Shri Bholeshwar, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly admits that the petitioners have taken the respective orders of termination in appeal before the competent authority.

¶5

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioners cannot prosecute two remedies simultaneously particularly when the remedy of appeal is an efficacious remedy and the same has been availed by the petitioners.

¶6

I see merit in the submission of learned Standing Counsel.

¶7

Faced with this, Shri Bholeshwar, learned counsel for the petitioners does not wish to press the reliefs sought in the writ petition. He recasts his relief. The only prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appeals of the petitioners may be decided within a stipulated period of time.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel does not have any objection to the aforesaid prayer. However, in his usual fairness he submits that the respondent authorities are under an obligation of law to decide the appeals of the petitioners within a reasonable period of time and not kept pending indefinitely.

¶9

Learned counsel for both the parties agree that no useful purpose will be served by exchanging the pleadings and keeping this writ petition pending before this Court. With

¶10

the consent of parties, the writ petition is being disposed of finally.

¶11

Without going into the merits of the case, the matter is remitted to the respondent no.4-Divisional Commandants/Deputy Commandant General/ Home Guard, Mukhyalaya Gorakhpur.

¶12

A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the respondent no.4-Divisional Commandants/Deputy Commandant General/ Home Guard, Mukhyalaya Gorakhpur, to execute the following direction:

¶13

The respondent no.4-Divisional Commandants/Deputy Commandant General/ Home Guard, Mukhyalaya Gorakhpur, shall decide the appeals of the petitioners by a speaking order in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of a computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the official website of the High Court Allahabad along with a fresh copy of the memo of appeals and any other supporting documents if any.

¶14

The computer generated copy of such order be self attested by the petitioner (party concerned) along with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked. The Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶15

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 2.11.2020/Dhananjai

Pradyuman Tiwari and 2 Ors. v. State of U P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradyuman Tiwari and 2 Ors. v. State of U P and 3 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

Sunita Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Kishan Paswan Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Suman Devi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Smt. Sona Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Santosh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shailendra Kumar Saxena and 13 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others