Allowed

Sooraj Kumar Mishra v. District Magistrate and Another

Allahabad HC1 Sept 2020WRIC/11685/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a direction for the District Magistrate to conclude an inquiry against the village Pradhan and to decide his pending representation filed on 18.6.2020. The Court directed the District Magistrate to conclude the inquiry and decide the representation within two months without adjudicating the claim on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent-1 (District Magistrate) to conclude the inquiry and decide the representation dated 18.6.2020 within two months from the date of production of the order copy.

Sooraj Kumar Mishra Vs District Magistrate and… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11685 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Sooraj Kumar Mishra Respondent :- District Magistrate And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhiraj Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the State - respondents.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed, amongst other, following relief:-

¶7

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the District Magistrate Prayagraj / respondent no. 1 to conclude the final enquiry against the village Village Pradhan / Santosh Sonkar pursuant to report dated 21.10.2019 submitted by the District Social Welfare officer, Prayagraj (Annexure-6).

¶8

ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the District Magistrate Prayagraj / respondent no. 1 to decide the comprehensive representation dated 18.6.2020 filed by the petitioner, within stipulated period."

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a representation has been filed on 18.6.2020, which is still pending and same may be decided expeditiously, in accordance with law.

¶10

To the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel has no objection in so far as the expeditious disposal of the petitioner's representation is concerned.

¶11

No useful purpose will be served by keeping the matter pending.

¶12

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction upon the respondent-1 to conclude the inquiry and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 18.6.2020 expeditiously, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this order.

¶13

It is made clear that the Court has not adjudicated the claim of the petitioner on merits. The party shall file computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the party concerned.

¶14

The concerned Court/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

Order Date :- 1.9.2020 Rahul Dwivedi/-

Sooraj Kumar Mishra v. District Magistrate and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sooraj Kumar Mishra v. District Magistrate and Another

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

Shamsher Bahadur Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mangaru and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Paltu Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Keval Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Ram Suresh Prasad Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Gyanti Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others