Disposed

Shitla Prasad Navik v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC13 Sept 2022WRIC/15346/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of an order rejecting petitioner's bid claim. Petitioner alleged illegal rejection and lack of opportunity, having already filed an objection with the Director. Court directed Director to decide pending objection within three months without expressing opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Director (Fisheries), U.P., to decide the petitioner's pending objection within three months.

Shitla Prasad Navik Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15346 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Shitla Prasad Navik Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Basdeo Nishad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Basdeo Nishad, counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3.

¶6

This Court vide order dated 6.8.2022 directed the standing counsel to obtain instructions, the same is placed on record which I also perused.

¶7

The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 21.4.2022, passed by respondent no. 3 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) by which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that he refused to accept the bid.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner filed an objection before the Director (Fisheries), U.P., Lucknow on 20.4.2022 with the prayer that order dated 13.4.2022 by which the bid was given to the person at Sl. No.3 was illegal as the petitioner was at Sl.No.2 and he never refused to accept the bid and his claim was rejected without giving him an opportunity. He further submitted that petitioner's claim has been illegally rejected due to malafide act of official concerned. He also placed reliance on the guidelines / terms and conditions (Annexure No.6 to the writ petition) for allotment of ponds.

¶9

On the other hand, the learned standing counsel submitted that petitioner was given opportunity who was at Sl. No.2 but since he refused to accept the bid, as such, claim was settled in favour of the person at Sl. No.3, so no interference is required against the impugned order.

¶10

I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the records.

¶11

Since the petitioner has filed an objection before the Director (Fisheries), U.P., Lucknow on 20.4.2022 stating the fact that he never refused to accept the bid, which is still pending consideration before the authority concerned.

¶12

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is disposed of with the direction to the Director (Fisheries), U.P., Lucknow to decide the objection / representation of the petitioner dated 20.4.2022, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 3 months, from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the authority concerned.

¶13

Order Date :- 13.9.2022 C.Prakash

¶14

Digitally signed by CHANDRA PRAKASH Date: 2022.09.13 18:16:38 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shitla Prasad Navik v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shitla Prasad Navik v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Lokman and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Akhilesh Chandra Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Bachhi Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kiran Devi Vs State of U P and 5 Others

Ram Chandra Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Ram Das Vs Board of Revenue and 5 Others