The petition challenging a subsequent advertisement was dismissed on the ground that the petitioners had no locus standi in a related earlier writ petition concerning the cancellation of a previous advertisement.
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. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2321 of 2022
Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Srivastava And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Grijesh Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Prabhakar Awasthi
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard Sri Grijesh Tiwari learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Gopal Chandra Saxena learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Prabhakar Awasthi learned counsel for the Commission.
By a separate order passed today, Writ-A No. 12686 of 2019, assailing the cancellation of the earlier advertisement dated 07.11.2014, has been dismissed.
Once the petitioners are found to have no right in the earlier writ petition filed by them, they cannot be heard to oppose fresh advertisement which is in the nature of consequential step taken by the respondents.
Consequentially, present petition filed to question the issuance of subsequent advertisement also fails and is dismissed .
Order Date :- 4.11.2022 Faraz
Digitally signed by FARAZ AHMAD Date: 2022.11.09 14:12:33 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Vijay Kumar Srivastava and 3 Others
State of UP and 2 Others
Saumitra Dayal Singh
Faraz Ahmad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
