The single-judge writ petition challenging the transfer order was dismissed for lack of locus standi, as the petitioner was deemed a busybody in a service matter.
The writ petition is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 83
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9559 of 2020
Petitioner :- Swapnil Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Subhash Chandra Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
When the matter was taken up, none appears on behalf of the petitioner to press the writ petition. Name of counsel for the petitioner is shown in the cause list. Shri Jagdish Singh Bundela, learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents is present.
The petitioner has challenged the order of transfer of respondent no. 5. The petitioner has not disclosed his locus standi to file the writ petition.
Writ petitions in service matters cannot be entertained at the instance of busybodies who are not aggrieved persons.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.11.2020 Dhananjai
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has locus standi to challenge the order of transfer.
Whether writ petitions in service matters can be entertained by busybodies.
Swapnil Singh
State Of U.P.
Ajay Bhanot
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
