The court directed that the pending Revision No.15 of 2014-15 be decided within two months of the order being presented to the petitioner's counsel and disposed of the writ petition.
Direction to decide the pending Revision No.15 of 2014-15 within two months from the date of presentation of this order.
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. - 7
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 149 of 2021
Petitioner :- Satish Kumar And And Another Respondent :- Board Of Revenue And 30 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Sri K.K. Mani, learned counsel for the respondent no.5.
The sole grievance of the petitioner is that the Revision being Revision No.15 of 2014-15, Satish Kumar Vs. State of U.P., was pending and was not being decided. A prayer, therefore, has been made to issue a direction to decide the Revision of the petitioner expeditiously.
Without entering into the merits of the case, it is being directed that the Revision No.15 of 2014-15, Satish Kumar Vs. State of U.P., be decided within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a copy of this order. The copy of this order would be duly certified by the petitioner's counsel.
With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.1.2021 Siddhant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Revision pending against the petitioner should be decided within a fixed period.
Satish Kumar
Board Of Revenue
Siddhartha Varma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
