A two-judge bench dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 where the petitioner sought action against a respondent for a private transaction, holding that jurisdiction does not lie.
The writ petition is dismissed in its entirety.
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. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33580 of 2021
Petitioner :- Manik Chandra Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.
None appears for the petitioner even when the matter is taken up in the revised list. The prayer made in the writ petition for taking action against respondent no. 4 is otherwise utterly misconceived as it relates to a private transaction between petitioner and respondent no. 4, for which a writ petition would not lie.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.12.2021 Ranjeet Sahu
1 issue framed by the court
Whether writ jurisdiction exists for a claim regarding a private transaction mentioned in a writ petition.
Manik Chandra Mishra
State Of U.P.
Others
Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Vikram D. Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
