The High Court held that the dispute was purely private nature and fell outside the scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, thus refusing to direct respondent authorities to act and dismissing the petition.
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. - 32
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17534 of 2020
Petitioner :- Jal Devi And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
This writ petition has been filed, interalia, for the following relief:
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no. 2 and 3 to decide the complaints/representations dated 6.11.2019 and 28.2.2020 within stipulated and reasonable period."
The petitioner in substance is seeking a direction against the respondents no. 4 and 5, who are private persons. Since the dispute between the parties appears to be purely private dispute, we do not see any justification to issue any direction to the concerned authorities while exercising our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
However, the petitioners may, if so advised, take proceedings before the common law court in accordance with law for redressal of their grievances.
With the above observation writ petition stands disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 2.11.2020 MLK
Jal Devi And 2 Others
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Shashi Kant Gupta
Pankaj Bhatia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
