Disposed

Krishna Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2022WRIC/18623/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner challenged the recovery of a compounding fee during pending revision proceedings before the State Government. Dismissing broad interference, the Court directed the revising authority to conclude the revision and stay application within two to three months to expedite justice.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed with a direction to the revising authority to decide the stay application within two weeks and conclude the revision within three months; no coercive measures for three w

Krishna Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 38

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18623 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Krishna Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Madhusudan Dikshit Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jai Bahadur Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Madhusudan Dikshit, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jai Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-development authority and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶6

The petitioner is in dispute with the development authority over certain construction being a petrol pump. Earlier by order dated 29.03.2022, the development authority had sealed the premises. Against that, the petitioner filed an appeal wherein for the purposes of grant of stay, he had approached this Court by means of writ petition being writ c no.12428 of 2022 (Krishna Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others). That writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 05.05.2022, directing the appellate authority to hear and decide the stay application at an early date.

¶7

At present, a further grievance has arisen to petitioner with respect to the above dispute. Vide order dated 05.02.2019, a demand of Rs.41,12,864/- was raised by way of compounding fee etc. The petitioner challenged the same in revision before the State Government being revision no.80 of 2022 filed under section 41(3) of the UP Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. In that revision, an order has been passed by the revising authority, dated 20.05.2022 requiring the development authority to submit its comments.

¶8

In this state of the proceedings, the respondent-development authority has issued the demand note seeking recovery of Rs.43,54,995/-.

¶9

Thus, it has been submitted that the officers and officials of the respondent-authority proceeded with a bias. During pendency of regular

¶10

revision proceedings, the demand has been pressed to cause deep prejudice.

¶11

Since the matter is pending before the revising authority, no interference is warranted on merits. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also not pressed prayer no.ii in the writ petition.

¶12

However, looking into the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction, in case the petitioner files a copy of this order before the revising authority together with the stay application in the pending revision no.80 of 2022, the said authority shall take up the matter on priority and pass an order on the stay application and ensure that the revision proceedings are concluded at an early date. For that purpose, let stay application be heard and decided, within a period of two weeks from the date of compliance shown by the petitioner and the revision be disposed of, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of compliance shown by the petitioner, subject to the petitioner not seeking any adjournment in those proceedings.

¶13

For a period of three weeks or till disposal of the stay application whichever is earlier, no coercive measures be adopted against the petitioner.

¶14

As to the further grievance of the petitioner with respect to personal hearing, it is expected that the revising authority shall make adequate arrangement to hear the petitioner physically or through online mode, as may be convenient.

¶15

Order Date :- 8.7.2022 S.Chaurasia

¶16

Digitally signed by SHUBHAM CHAURASIA Date: 2022.07.08 18:37:39 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Krishna Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Basudeo Steel Furnitures Vs the Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P.Lucknow

Mohit Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Prashant Kumar Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

S/S Vijay Dry Fruit Company Gola Deena Nath Varanasi Vs the Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P.Lucknow

Akhilesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Ratnesh Kumari Vs State of U.P. and Others