Disposed

Satya Narayan Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Jan 2022WRIC/34039/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought mandamus directing the respondent to appoint the petitioner as a dealer following vacancies and to decide a representation within a stipulated time. The court disposed of the petition, directing the respondent to decide the representation within three months without adjudicating on merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent No. 2 to decide the petitioner's representation within three months of submitting the certified copy of this order.

Satya Narayan Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 34039 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Satya Narayan Gupta Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar,Chandra Shekhar Agnihotri Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel through video conferencing.

¶6

Present petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:-

¶7

"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing respondent No. 2 to comply the Government order dated 26.03.2018 issued by the Special Secretary, Government of U.P., Lucknow and orders dated 02.01.2021, 19.07.2021 passed by the Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham Mandal Banda and to adjust/appoint the petitioner as Food Grains and Essential Commodities dealer for the area for which he has been granted retail Kerosene Oil Dealership.

¶8

ii). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing respondent No. 2 to decide the representation dated 10.09.2021, within the stipulated time."

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier petitioner has filed Writ-C No. 42526 of 2018 which was disposed of vide order dated 2.7.2019 with direction to respondent no. 2 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner which was earlier rejected by respondent No. 2 on the ground that there is no vacancy available for foodgrains and essential commodities dealership. He further submitted that as on date, there is vacancy, therefore, representation of the petitioner dated 10.09.2021 shall be reconsider and decided in the light of Government Order dated 26.03.2018 and orders dated 02.01.2021, 19.07.2021 passed by the Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham Mandal Banda.

¶10

Learned standing counsel submitted that representation of the petitioner shall be considered and decided strictly in accordance with law at the earliest.

¶11

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ

¶12

petition is disposed of directing respondent No. 2 to decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner in accordance with law maximum within period of three months from the date of submission of certified copy of this order.

¶13

It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the case on merits. It is upon respondent No. 2 to pass order after considering the relevant Government orders or any other law occupying the field as well as facts of the case.

¶14

Order Date :- 19.1.2022 Sartaj

Satya Narayan Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satya Narayan Gupta 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

Smt. Noorjahan Vs Prescribed Authority Sub Divisional Officer and 14 Others

Anil Kumar Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Krishna Murari Jaiswal and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Prakash Prasad Narayan Sinha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vineet Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Prem Chand Verma Vs Tehsildar, Teshil Salempur, District Deoria and 2 Others