Disposed

Chandrika Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC1 Jul 2021WRIC/8305/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition comprising three others with the Standing Counsel's consent. It directed the District Magistrate/competent authority to process the petitioner's application under the U.P. Bhoodan Act expeditiously with a hearing, noting no merit-based opinion was expressed. The court also directed protection during office attendance.

What did the court decide?

Directed the District Magistrate/Rt. No.3 to process the application expeditiously with a hearing and provide protection to the petitioner while attending the office.

Chandrika Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 3

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8305 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Chandrika Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Devbratt Yadav,Ram Pratap Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondents.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed, praying for the following reliefs:-

¶7

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the District Magistrate, Azamgarh, the Chairman of Bhoodan Yagya Committee to process and finalize the application filed by the petitioner dated 17.12.2020 under Section 8 of U.P. Bhoodan Act, 1952 in time frame without any further delay contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition, so that justice be done.

¶8

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the District Magistrate, Azamgarh to provide protection to the life of the petitioner while he is attending the office of the District Magistrate, Azamgarh for performing the necessary formalities in processing and finalizing the proceeding referred to above in the better interest of justice"

¶9

Sri Mata Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondents states on instruction that the application of the petitioner shall be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law, expeditiously.

¶10

In view of the stand taken by the learned Standing Counsel, we do not find any good reason to call for a counter affidavit and keep the writ petition pending. Therefore, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of , directing the respondent No.3 to decide the application of the petitioner in accordance with law, expeditiously, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned.

¶11

It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case of the petitioner.

¶12

Order Date :- 1.7.2021 T.S.

Chandrika Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrika Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tanveer Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ganesh Dutt Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pradeep Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Suresh Chandra Vs Union of India and 7 Others

Smt.Chameli Devi Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Amrun Nisha Vs State of U P and 4 Others