Disposed

Jitendra Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC25 Jan 2021WRIC/1064/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the objection raised by the Standing Counsel regarding the availability of alternative forums (District, Regional, State Committees) had substance. Consequently, the Court was not inclined to proceed under Article 226 at this stage and disposed of the writ petition, advising the petitioner to approach the appropriate administrative forum.

What the court decided

AI extract

Jitendra Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1064 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Jitendra Kumar Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Lavkush Kumar Bhatt Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.

¶6

Petitioner is before this Court with a request commanding the third respondent to decide the representation dated 16.12.2020 regarding protection to the life and property of the petitioner on account of cancellation of arms license.

¶7

At the very outset, an objection is being raised by learned Standing Counsel to the extent that in case there is any danger to the life and property of the petitioner, there is already three forums, i.e., District Level Committee, Regional Level Committee and the State Level Committee. In case, the petitioner is aggrieved with non-consideration of the claim by the District Level Committee, it is always open to him to press the relief before the Regional Level Committee.

¶8

Once an objection is being raised, the Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and finds substance in the arguments so advanced by learned Standing Counsel. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to proceed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, at this stage. However, it is always open to the petitioner to press the relief before the appropriate forum.

¶9

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of .

¶10

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioner alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶11

The concerned Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶12

Order Date :- 25.1.2021 A.K.Srivastava

¶13

Digitally signed by Justice Mahesh Digitally signed by Justice Sanjay Chandra Tripathi Kumar Pachori Date: 2021.01.29 15:12:59 IST Date: 2021.01.29 15:14:32 IST Reason: Document Owner Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Allahabad

Jitendra Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Jitendra Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mayavati Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Manraji Devi @ Manraji Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Sharwara and Another Vs State of U.P. and 12 Others

District Basic Education Officer and Another Vs Raj Kumari and 4 Others

Anju Devi Vs State of U.P. through District Collector and Another

Smt. Poonam Rastogi Vs the Meerut Development Authority and 4 Others