The High Court refused to directly interfere with the petitioner's grievance regarding lease possession at Noida Sector-92, which was already ventilated through a representation. It directed the respondent authority to decide the representation via a speaking order within two months.
2 Months from filing
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. - 4
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5085 of 2020
Petitioner :- Than Singh Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nipun Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushalendra Nath Singh
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Heard Sri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for respondents no. 2 and 3.
This petition has been filed with the following prayers :-
"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 and 3 to forthwith execute a lease deed and deliver the possession of Plot No. A-184, Sector-92, NOIDA, District Gautam Budh Nagar, by accepting the lease rent/lease premium as per Residential Scheme 2000.
ii) Or in alternative issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 authority to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 6.11.2019 (Annexure No. 22 to the writ petition) within a time bound period as may be directed by this Hon'ble Court.
iii) Issue any other writ order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
iv) Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner."
Since the petitioner has approached this Court directly for ventilation of his grievance which has already been raised by him before the respondent no. 2, by filing a representation before him. We refuse to interfere in this matter.
However, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of this writ petition with the direction to the respondent no. 2 to decide the representation filed by the petitioner (Annexure 22 to the writ petition) strictly in accordance with law by a speaking and reasoned order as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of filing of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 13.2.2020 Ishan
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere when a grievance was already raised before the respondent via representation.
Whether the impugned representation regarding lease possession should be decided by a speaking and reasoned order within a specified time.
What direction should the authority issue regarding the lease deed execution and possession delivery based on the representation?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Than Singh Sharma
State Of U.P.
Respondent No. 2
Respondent No. 3
Bala Krishna Narayana
Shamim Ahmed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
