Respondent counsel cited revised reporting showing petitioner's deposit. Court held no cause of action survived, disposing the writ petition.
null
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. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25805 of 2020
Petitioner :- Rakesh Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Srivastava,Archana Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Baleshwar Chaturvedi
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and Shri Baleshwar Chaturvedi, learned counsel representing the respondent nos.2 & 3.
The instant petition has been filed seeking following relief:
" (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned notice/order dated 6.9.2019, 19.12.2019 & 11.6.2020 passed by the respondent no.2;
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent concern not to take any coercive action against the petitioner in the interest of justice during the pendency of the present writ petition before this Hon'ble Court;
(c) Issue such other and further appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case;
(d) Award the cost of writ petition in favour of the petitioner."
At the very outset, Shri Baleshwar Chaturvedi, learned counsel representing the respondent nos.2 & 3 contends that in pursuance of the revised checking report, due amount has already been deposited by the petitioner, as such there is no due is remaining with the petitioner. The copy of the instruction so received by the learned counsel for the Power Corporation has been supplied to this Court shall be part of the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the aforesaid fact.
In view of the above, no cause of action survives for keeping this petition pending. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
Order Date :- 18.1.2021/M. Tariq
Rakesh Sharma
State Of U.P.
Respondent No. 2
Respondent No. 3
Naheed Ara Moonis
Dinesh Pathak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
