Disposed

Zulfiqar Ali v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC19 Jan 2021WRIC/931/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a single-line order disposed of forthwith, the Court did not decide the merits of the petition concerning an administrative representation. Instead, it directed the filing of a fresh representation within two weeks, converting the disposal into a substantive judicial review window.

What did the court decide?

Direction to make a fresh representation within two weeks, with a commitment by the authority to redress the grievance based on relevant precedent within a further two weeks.

Zulfiqar Ali Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 931 of 2021 Petitioner :- Zulfiqar Ali Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Kumar Yadav,Tawvab Ahmed Khan

¶2

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

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

¶4

Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶5

The petitioner is before this Court with request to issue direction to the respondents no.2/Director, Panchayati Raj, Government of U.P., Lucknow to decide his representation dated 13.11.2020 after providing opportunity of hearing.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment dated 11.02.2015 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ - C No. 68435 of 2014 ( Vishnu Dev Upadhyay Vs. State of U.P. & 2 Others ) and as such, the petitioner's representation dated 17.11.2020 may be decided in the light of the aforesaid judgement.

¶7

Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the legal and factual aspect of the matter.

¶8

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue, the writ petition stands disposed of with observation that in case the petitioner makes a fresh representation to the Director, Panchayati Raj, Government of U.P., Lucknow for ventilating his grievance within two weeks' from today, the authority concerned would redress the grievance of the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid judgment passed in Vishnu Dev Upadhyay's case (supra) in further two weeks time.

¶9

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

¶10

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the

¶11

official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶12

Order Date :- 19.1.2021 Ishan

Zulfiqar Ali v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zulfiqar Ali v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahatim Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Saroj Vs Consumer Forum and 2 Others

Gram Panchayat Bharehta and Another Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Hriday Narayan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Siya Rani Vs State of U.P. and 13 Others

Shamim Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others