Allowed

Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC3 Jan 2022WRIC/33292/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed respondent no. 4 to examine the petitioner's representation regarding encroachment on a nala and national highway. If encroachment is found, the authority should issue notice and take consequential actions after hearing all concerned parties.

What did the court decide?

The respondent no. 4 was directed to examine the petitioner's representation and, if encroachment is found, issue notice to the encroacher and take consequential action after hearing all parties.

Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 4… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33292 of 2021 Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prem Chandra Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra

¶2

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Prem Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondent no. 2.

¶4

According to the petitioner, private respondent no. 5 has made encroachment on a nala and part of national highway which passes just in front of his house. The petitioner is alleged to have moved several applications for removal of the encroachment before the authorities but when no action was taken, the instant petition has been filed praying for a mandamus directing the Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Tehsildar Etmadpur, District Agra to make the public road and nala free from illegal encroachment. The petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus directing the respondent no. 4 to decide the representation made by the petitioner in this regard dated 19.02.2021.

¶5

Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the N.H.A.I. states that the N.H.A.I. carried out a demarcation exercise and has supplied the report thereof to the petitioner. The petitioner has not filed the report along with the writ petition. He further states that in case, there is any encroachment, the same has to be taken care of by respondent nos. 3 and 4.

¶6

Having regard to the nature of controversy, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be served in directing respondent no. 4 to examine the representation of the petitioner and in case, he finds that there is any encroachment, he will issue notice to the fifth respondent or any other person who has made the encroachment and will thereafter undertake consequential action in accordance with law. It is needless to mention that before passing any order, all concerned parties shall be heard including the N.H.A.I.

¶7

The petition stands disposed of.

¶8

Order Date :- 3.1.2022 Pratima

¶9

(Dr.Y.K.Srivastava,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Kuldeep Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kavita Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

M/S S.S. Medico and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sona Devi Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Smt. Kamla Devi Vs Lakhan Singh and 6 Others

Mohd. Salam Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others