Disposed

Krashn Kant Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC12 Feb 2021WRIC/1884/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of the petitioner's writ petition regarding the allotment of a residential plot. The court directed the competent authority to consider the pending representation expeditiously without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Directing the competent authority to consider the pending representation and dispose of the matter expeditiously within six weeks.

Krashn Kant Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1884 of 2021 Petitioner :- Krashn Kant Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pratik Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ravi Prakash Pandey,Suresh C. Dwivedi

¶3

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

¶4

Heard Shri Pratik Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent no.1 and Shri S.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the Ghaziabad Development Authority.

¶5

Present writ petition is preferred seeking following reliefs:-

¶6

"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authority to issue an appropriate allotment letter and to allot residential plot/flat pursuance to the Scheme Code 001, Property Code310, Application No.68870.

¶7

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authority to consider the application of the petitioner under physically challenged category and to issue an appropriate allotment letter and to allot residential plot/flat in respect of the Scheme Code 001, Property Code-310, Application No.68870.

¶8

iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authority to issue an appropriate allotment letter and to allot residential plot/flat to the Scheme Code 011, Property Code-310, Application No.68870 and to take appropriate decision within stipulated period of time as prescribed by this Honb'le Court."

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that so far as the grievance of the petitioner is concerned, he has already filed a representation dated 05.10.2018 before the respondent no.2 for redressal of his grievance, which is still pending. He has confined his prayer only to the relief that his representation dated 05.10.2018 may be considered by the appropriate authority.

¶10

Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the said prayer.

¶11

No useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending.

¶12

In view of above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of finally with liberty to the

¶13

petitioner to move an appropriate application within one week from today, along with copy of this order before the competent authority, which is stated to be respondent No.3/Secretary, Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad, who may consider the application filed by the petitioner and decide the same strictly in accordance with law, expeditiously and preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the representation.

¶14

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicants 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.

¶15

The concerned Court/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.

¶16

Order Date :- 12.2.2021 RKP

Krashn Kant Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krashn Kant Singh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dargah Mubarak Khan Saheed Waqf No. 151 Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Piyush Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Hari Singh Vs U.P. Power Corporation and 3 Others

Geeta Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sumit Raj Business Ventures Private Limited and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others