Disposed

Shrinath v. Collector/District Deputy Director of Consolidation and 5 Others

Allahabad HC28 Jan 2022WRIB/2312/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge disposed of a writ petition challenging the Collector's order rejecting a transfer application. The court clarified a procedural irregularity where the petitioner was not furnished with the respondent's written argument and granted an opportunity to submit arguments.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to submit written argument within two weeks and thereafter within two months; no interference with transfer order.

Shrinath Vs Collector/District Deputy Director of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2312 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Shrinath

¶4

Respondent :- Collector/District Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 5 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- A.P.Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Brijesh Chandra Naik,Satendra Kumar Singh,Suresh Chandra Varma

¶6

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶7

This writ petition is directed against an order passed by Collector, rejecting the application for transfer filed by petitioner against the concerned Deputy Director of Consolidation. The ground for seeking transfer was that the Presiding Officer was obtaining opinion of a lawyer for deciding the issue. This statement made in the transfer application has been denied by the Presiding Officer, who states that the proceedings were concluded and only judgment was to be delivered in the matter. One of the grounds taken in the transfer application also is that written argument filed by the respondents was not served upon the petitioner and the petitioner was prevented from submitting his written argument in the matter.

¶8

The allegation made for transfer in the petition has been denied and no material has been placed in support of the plea made by the petitioner in transfer application. From the materials placed on record it appears that there is already a direction by this Court in Writ Petition No.27607 of 2014 to conclude the proceedings within six months. The petitioner appears to be primarily aggrieved by the fact that copy of the written argument was not furnished to him. This written argument is now a part of the record and the petitioner will be at liberty to submit his written argument within two weeks from today. The Presiding Officer, if so required, may fix a date for oral argument, if he deems it appropriate, and shall proceed to decide the matter on merits and in accordance with law. No interference with the order of Collector refusing to transfer the proceedings to any other court is warranted in view of the above observations made in the present petition, which stands disposed of accordingly.

¶9

In the event copy of the written argument has not been furnished to the petitioner so far, the same shall be done within a period of two weeks from today. The petitioner will have further opportunity to submit his written argument within a further period of two months, thereafter.

¶10

Order Date :- 28.1.2022 Anil

Shrinath v. Collector/District Deputy Director of Consolidation and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrinath v. Collector/District Deputy Director of Consolidation and 5 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

Neeraj Kumar Singh Vs State of Up and 2 Others

Raseed Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sangeeta Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Lal Ji Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vijay Bahadur and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 12 Others

Mohasin Ali Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others