Quashed

Bharat Prasad Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC13 Apr 2022WRIA/18328/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A High Court of Judicature at Allahabad quashed an order directing recovery of Rs.77,79,619 from a petitioner. The court held that the order relied on documents not supplied to the petitioner, and the respondent failed to rebut this specific averment.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 02.11.2021 directing recovery of Rs.77,79,619 is quashed, and the petitioner is allowed.

Bharat Prasad Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 32

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18328 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Bharat Prasad Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shantanu Khare,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsels for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed praying for quashing of the order dated 02.11.2021 passed by respondent no. 2, Director of Education (Basic), U.P., Lucknow, whereby recovery of Rs.77,79,619/- has been directed against the petitioner.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in paragraph no. 33 of the writ petition, clear averment was made that the order impugned places reliance upon several documents which were never supplied to the petitioner nor any opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to rebut the same.

¶8

In reply to the aforesaid paragraph, in paragraph no. 21 of the counter affidavit, no specific reply has been given.

¶9

It has only been stated that the order impugned is just and legal and has been passed after affording opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner wilfully and deliberately did not appeared before the authority concerned.

¶10

After considering the pleadings on record, it is clear that the respondents have not rebutted the contents of paragraph no. 33 of the writ petition which clearly states that the documents relied upon by the respondent no. 2, Director of Education (Basic), U.P., Lucknow, were never supplied to the petitioner.

¶11

In view of the above, the impugned order dated 02.11.2021, is hereby quashed.

¶12

The writ petition is accordingly, allowed.

¶13

It shall be open for the respondents to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶14

Order Date :- 13.4.2022 KS

¶15

Digitally signed by KISHAN SINHA Date: 2022.04.13 16:41:49 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bharat Prasad Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Prasad Yadav 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nepal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Sumitra Devi and 2 Others Vs M/S S.G. Rockbuild Pvt. Ltd. and Another

Niharika Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mihi Lal Since Dead and Now Rep.by. Bhikam Singh Vs Shyam Lal Since Dead and Now Rep. by.Shri Chhattarmal and Oth.

Rakhi Kaushik Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sant Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others