Disposed

Kashif Bashar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC8 Jun 2022WRIC/16455/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging dispossession from a shop, the Allahabad High Court observed that without an interim injunction order, the petitioner could not seek restriction on police actions. Courts can only intervene if official powers are misused; otherwise, the correct remedy is to approach the Superintending Police Officer. The petition was disposed without granting mandamus.

What the court decided

AI extract

Kashif Bashar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16455 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Kashif Bashar And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Sarwar Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

¶5

The instant writ petition has been filed praying for a mandamus restraining respondent no.4, i.e., Station House Officer, P.S. Shahganj, District Jaunpur not to dispossess the petitioner from the shop bearing Municipal No. 59 (old) and New No. 61, Ward No. 25 situated at Mohalla West Kauriya, Jaunpur.

¶6

The admitted facts of the case are that respondent no.5, who is the real brother of the petitioners, had executed a 'Hiba' (Will) of the dispute property in favour of his wife, i.e., respondent no.6. The same was challenged by the petitioners by filing Original Suit No. 48 of 2022. The application for temporary injunction filed by the petitioners in the civil suit was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 21.5.2022. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed an appeal and according to the statement made by counsel for the petitioner at Bar, the appeal is now posted for hearing on 7.7.2022. The case of the petitioners is that the Station House Officer, P.S. Shahganj, District Jaunpur, i.e., respondent no.4, is, in collusion with the brother of the petitioners. He is trying to dispossess them from the suit property.

¶7

It is not in dispute that the trial court has declined to grant

¶8

temporary injunction to the petitioners and even in appeal so far, there is no order of injunction in favour of the petitioners. In case, respondent no.4 is misusing the official powers as provided to him by law, it is open to the petitioners to bring this fact to the knowledge of respondent no.3 by moving an application along with true attested copy of the instant order and in which event, the respondent no.3 shall ensure that respondent no.4 does not act in a partisan manner.

¶9

The petition stands disposed off with the above observations.

¶10

Order Date: - 8.6.2022 CS/-

¶11

(Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.)

¶12

Digitally signed by CHANDAN SINGH Date: 2022.06.13 14:55:42 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kashif Bashar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Kashif Bashar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Khadi Gram Udyog Jan Sewa Sansthan and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Kusum Vs General Manager Uco Bank Zonal Office Kanpur Nagar and Another

Shabnam Shafiq Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shahana Begum Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sanjoo Gond Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shyam Babu Verma and Another Vs State of U P and 4 Others