Disposed

Mohd. Ishrat v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC13 Feb 2020WRIC/5103/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner approached the High Court under writ jurisdiction seeking direction from the City Civil Judge (as respondent 2) to decide an application for compounding of illegal constructions within three weeks, as the same remained undecided despite being filed on 7.11.2019.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No. 2 to decide the petitioner's application for compounding of constructions within three weeks via a speaking order.

Mohd. Ishrat Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Municipal and Town Planning | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5103 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Mohd. Ishrat Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akash Tyagi,Pranshu Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupeshwar Dayal

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Sri Bhupeshwar Dayal, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3.

¶6

This petition has been filed with the following prayers :-

¶7

"A) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 06.05.2019 of the vice Chairman Meerut Development Authority (Annexure No.4).

¶8

B) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authority to decide the application of the petitioner dated 07.11.2019 (Annexure No. 7)

¶9

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

¶10

D) Award costs of the present petition in the favour of petitioner."

¶11

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has moved an application before the respondent no. 2 on 7.11.2019 for compounding the constructions raised by him on Plot No. 14 (Old No. 12) situate on Zone C, Railway Road, Meerut, but the same has not been decided till date.

¶12

It is next contended that a direction be issued to the respondent no. 2 to decide the application filed by the petitioner before him for compounding of his constructions.

¶13

Sri Bhupeshwar Dayal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 & 3 has no objection to the aforesaid prayer made by the petitioner's counsel.

¶14

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.2 to decide the application filed by the petitioner for compounding of the constructions raised by the petitioner on Plot No. 14 (Old No. 12) situate on Zone C, Railway Road, Meerut, within a period of three weeks' from the date of filing

¶15

of the certified copy of this order before him, strictly in accordance with law, by a speaking and reasoned order.

¶16

Order Date :- 13.2.2020 Ishan

Mohd. Ishrat v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Ishrat 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

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