Disposed

Raghvendra Pandey v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Feb 2022WRIC/2552/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the State authorities to decide a pending application for correction of date of birth. The court disposed of the petition without adjudicating on merits, directing the impleaded respondent to decide the fresh application within three months if filed within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; liberty to file fresh application with respondent No. 3 to be decided within three months if filed within two weeks.

Raghvendra Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2552 of 2022 Petitioner :- Raghvendra Pandey Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabha Shanker Mishra,Vibhuti Narayan Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶2

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Ayush Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Prabha Shanker Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.

¶4

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead the Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Prayagraj as respondent no.3 during the course of day.

¶5

Present petition has been filed seeking following relief:-

¶6

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent authorities to decide the claim of the petitioner regarding correction of date of birth pending before them within a short stipulated time period as may be specified by this Hon'ble Court."

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for redressal of his grievance, petitioner has moved an application on 5.9.2018 before the respondent No. 2, but the same has not been decided till date. Lastly, he submitted that a suitable direction may be issued to respondent No.2 to decide the application of petitioner at the earliest.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel submitted that it is required on the part of petitioner to move fresh application before the newly impleaded respondent no.3 for redressal of his grievances and in case any such application is filed, the same shall be considered and decided at the earliest.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to move fresh application before the respondent no.3 for redressal of his grievance. In case any such application is filed before the respondent no.3 within two weeks from today, he shall consider and decide the same maximum within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶10

It is made clear that Court has not adjudicated the case on merits and it is upon the respondent no. 3 to decide the aforesaid application of the petitioner after considering the relevant Acts, Rules, Government Orders, Judicial pronouncement made by the Court as well as facts of the case.

¶11

Order Date :- 15.2.2022 Junaid

¶12

Digitally signed by JUNAID AHMAD Date: 2022.02.15 17:01:23 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raghvendra Pandey v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghvendra Pandey v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Waqf Sheikh Imami Vs Anwarul Haq

Ankush Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Stalin Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Khoob Chandra Paliwal Shiksha Samiti Primary School Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Amber Shabi Vs Aligarh Muslim University and Another

Shakumbari Ayurvedic Prikshan Sansthan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others