Disposed

Puneet Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC13 Feb 2020WRIC/5100/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction to respondent authority to decide on a submitted plan/map within a month. Without expressing opinion on merits, court directed respondent to pass appropriate order within one month of filing copy.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no.3 to pass appropriate order on the submitted plan/map within one month from date of filing certified copy of this order.

Puneet Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5100 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Puneet Kumar Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sheo Shankar Tripathi,Adya Prasad Tewari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,K.R. Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1 and Sri K.R. Singh, learned counsel for respondents no. 2 & 3.

¶6

This petition has been filed with the following prayers :-

¶7

"a) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents specially the Vice Chairman, Gorakhpur Development Authority, Gorakhpur, the third respondent to process and take decision with regard to sanctioned the plan/map No. 20190909114949783 dated 12.09.2019 submitted by the petitioner over his bhumidhari plot no. 254M of Khata No. 26 situate at Ghasi Katra Tehsil, Sadar, District Gorakhpur u/s 15, U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 by passing reasoned speaking order as early as possible within the time frame.

¶8

b) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

¶9

c) Award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner."

¶10

The grievance of the petitioner appears to be that the petitioner has submitted a plan/map No. 20190909114949783 dated 12.09.2019 before the respondent no. 3 for sanction, but no order has been passed by the respondent no. 3 on the said plan/map either approving or disapproving the same despite lapse of more than five months.

¶11

In view of above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of the writ petition with the direction to respondent no.3 to pass appropriate order on the plan/map No. 20190909114949783 dated 12.09.2019 submitted by the petitioner before him within a period of one month from the date of filing of the certified copy of this order before him, strictly in accordance with law.

¶12

Order Date :- 13.2.2020 Ishan

Puneet Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puneet Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Neetu Mittal Vs Brajesh Kumar Agarwal Alias Mintu

The Deputy Chief Engineer Construction-Ii Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Dharmwati Devi Vs State of U.P. and Others

Kishan Pal @ Keshan Pal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S Vardan Construction Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Durga Dutt Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others