Writ petition filed apprehending dispossession was dismissed as premature due to lack of cause of action. Court held no interference under Article 226 was possible at this stage.
No relief granted; writ petition dismissed as premature due to lack of cause of action.
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. - 35 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 910 of 2020 Petitioner :- Madanpal And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Gautam Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Bharati Sapru,J. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
From the records, it reflects that the petition is premature as there is no cause of action to maintain the writ petition.
The petitioner has apprehension that he may be dispossessed.The petitioner is not without remedies. There is general problem. However at this stage, it is not possible for this court to interfere in the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as there is no cause of action as yet.
The writ petition is dismissed as yet. No costs.
Order Date :- 20.1.2020 rk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition is maintainable given the absence of cause of action.
Whether court can interfere under Article 226 in the apprehension of dispossession at this stage.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Madanpal And Another
State of U.P. and Another
Bharati Sapru
Piyush Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
