Disposed

Mangla Singh v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC17 Mar 2020WRIC/8766/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the petitioner's writ petition by keeping her at liberty to avail the appeal remedy under Section 25 of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964, instead of exercising Article 226 jurisdiction, subject to specific directions on appellate timelines and interim relief.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner kept at liberty to avail remedy under Section 25; appellate authority to decide on merits within 15 days; no coercive action till appeal filed.

Mangla Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Chief Justice's Court

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8766 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Mangla Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Agrahari,Swatantra Kumar Tripathi

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archit Mandhyan

¶5

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Chief Justice Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶6

This petition for writ is before us to examine the correctness of the order dated 09.09.2019 passed by the Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Prayagraj.

¶7

By the order aforesaid, the Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Prayagraj has fastened the liability of Rs. 1,90,231.00 upon the petitioner. By the same order, the Committee has also cancelled the allotment of the Godown made in favour of the petitioner's husband late Sri Govind Singh. The order aforesaid is appellable under Section 25 of U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964. It is submitted by learned counsel that the order being passed in violation of principles of natural justice as well as in violation of statutory provisions, this Court can very well entertain this petition for writ ignoring the alternative remedy.

¶8

True it is, the doctrine of approaching writ Court after exhausting all alternative remedies is a self imposed restriction and a writ Court can ignore that if there is violation of principles of natural justice or infringement of fundamental rights but at the same time it is always to be kept in mind that the Court is not required to necessarily invoke powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if there is any allegation with regard to violation of principles of natural justice or violation of fundamental rights. Such an argument can very well be examined even by the appellate authority. Essentially a writ Court exercises a broad direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and on judicious application of mind the Court may entertain or refuse to entertain a petition for writ. In normal course a writ Court must be slow in invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction, if an effective alternative remedy is available.

¶9

In view of it, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition for writ by keeping the petitioner at liberty to avail the remedy under Section 25 of the Act, 1964. We, however, provide that if

¶10

petitioner prefers any appeal on or before 24.04.2020, the appellate authority shall consider and decide the same on merits within a period of 15 days subsequent thereto. The petitioner may also move application to have interim relief while availing the remedy of appeal and till filing of the appeal no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.

¶11

Order Date :- 17.3.2020 IrfanUddin

¶12

(Ajit Kumar,J.) (Govind Mathur, C.J.)

Mangla Singh v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangla Singh v. State of U.P. and 5 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

Rajendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

M/S Shan Brick Field Mandar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Munni Lal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Abhishek @ Rajan and 2 Others Vs Bulandshahr Development Authority and 4 Others