Allowed

Satyendra Kumar Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC13 Oct 2020WRIA/8532/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge granted a writ of mandamus to the Revenue Principal Secretary, directing him to decide the petitioner's pending revision application within three months on merits without raising the issue of delay, as delay was attributable to the lower authority's inaction.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus issued to the Principal Secretary to decide the revision within three months on merits without raising the issue of delay.

Satyendra Kumar Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and 4… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 83 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8532 of 2020 Petitioner :- Satyendra Kumar Chaudhary Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sujeet Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶2

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶3

The impugned order dated 07.01.2020 while rejecting the revision of the petitioner records that the State Government is the competent authority under Rule 13 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. The said rule which is relevant is extracted hereinunder:

¶4

"13. Revision. - Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the Government may of its own motion or on the representation of concerned Government servant call for the record of any case decided by an authority subordinate to it in the exercise of any power conferred on such authority by these rules; and

¶5

(a) confirm, modify or reverse the order passed by such authority; or

¶6

(b) direct that a further inquiry be held in the case, or

¶7

¶8

(d) make such other order in the case as it may deem fit;"

¶9

No fault can be found with the findings with the Commissioner, Kanpur Region, Kanpur Nagar, that the competent revisional authority in this case is State Government.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the revision was pending for the past six years.

¶11

I see merit in the submission of Shri Shriprakash Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner that the Commissioner, Kanpur Region, Kanpur Nagar, kept it pending for long years and dismissed it on the grounds of non

¶12

maintainability. During the aforesaid period, the limitation for filing the revision before the competent authority has expired. The petitioner cannot be faulted for the aforesaid delay.

¶13

The only prayer made by Sri Shriprakash Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the revision of the petitioner may be decided within a stipulated period of time.

¶14

Learned Standing Counsel in his usual fairness submits that the respondent authorities are under an obligation of law to decide the revision of the petitioner within a reasonable period of time and not keep it pending indefinitely.

¶15

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

¶16

Without going into the merits of the case, the matter is remitted to the respondent no.1-Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of U.P., Lucknow.

¶17

The petitioner undertakes to file the revision before the respondent no.1-Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of U.P., Lucknow within a period of one month from today.

¶18

A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the respondent no.1-Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of U.P., Lucknow, to execute the following directions:

¶19

I. In case the petitioner files the revision within a period of one month from today, the respondent no.1-Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of U.P., Lucknow, shall decide the revision on merits without going into the question of delay.

¶20

II. The respondent no.1-Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of U.P., Lucknow, shall decide the revision of the petitioner 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 revision and any other supporting documents.

¶21

The computer generated copy of such order be self attested by the petitioners (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.

¶22

The writ petition is disposed of finally.

¶23

Order Date :- 13.10.2020 Dhananjai

Satyendra Kumar Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyendra Kumar Chaudhary 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

Ved Prakash Garg Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dr. Akhilesh Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Hemant Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mahendra Kumar Dubey Vs State of U P and 2 Others

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

Smt. Sheela Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another