Allowed

Mam Chandra Goel v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC28 Jan 2021WRIA/1194/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-bench writ petition sought directions to consider pending representations for a duplicate vehicle permit under Rule 88 of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules. The court disposed of the petition expeditiously, directing Respondent 2 to decide the representation within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent 2 to consider and decide the representation dated 23.10.2020 within four weeks.

Mam Chandra Goel Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1194 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Mam Chandra Goel Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Greesh Kumar Malviya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents.

¶6

The instant petition has been filed seeking following reliefs :

¶7

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the applications of the petitioner (Annexure-2, 3 and 4 to the writ petition) and pass appropriate order thereon by intimating the petitioner about the same,

¶8

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pass appropriate orders on the pending applications of the petitioner (Annexure-2, 3 and 4 to the writ petition) for providing duplicate copy of No. PSTP-1377 to the petitioner as per provisions contained in Rule-88 of U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998."

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his argument to direct the respondent no. 2 to consider the representation dated 23.10.2020 which has been moved for claiming duplicate permit. The original copy of the permit has been appended as Annexure-1 to the writ petition which is not legible and as such the petitioner is entitled to get the duplicate copy of the permit in accordance with Rule 88 of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1988. He has further submitted that prior to 23.10.2020, the petitioner has made several representations but the grievance of the petitioner has not been considered, hence the petitioner has approached this Court by means of the instant petition.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel submits that representation of the petitioner, which is still pending, shall be considered and decided in accordance with law, if some reasonable time is granted by this Court.

¶11

Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing

¶12

Counsel, without going into the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no. 2 (The Transport Commissioner, Tedhi Kothi, U.P., Lucknow) to consider and decide the representation dated 23.10.2020 moved by the petitioner, which is annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date a copy of this order is filed before him.

¶13

Order Date :- 28.1.2021 VR/

Mam Chandra Goel v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mam Chandra Goel 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

Ashish Kumar Pradhan Vs Managing Director Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam and 3 Others

Alluddin Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Shamshad Ali Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vinod Kumar Saroj Vs Purvanchal Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and 2 Others

Mohammad Azam Khan Vs the Managing Director Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam and 4 Others

Sukhram Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others