Disposed

Kartik Chandra Mishra v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC15 Dec 2022WRIC/38220/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged non-decision on objection to a review application filed by respondent No. 3 regarding an ex parte cancellation of a building plan. Court held authority has power of procedural review and directed respondent to decide matter within eight weeks, disposing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent No. 2 to decide the review application within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.

Kartik Chandra Mishra Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38220 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Kartik Chandra Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Praveen Kumar,Onkar Nath Vishwakarma,Sr. Advocate

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

¶6

The building plan submitted by respondent no. 3 was cancelled ex parte by the Prescribed Authority, Regulated Area, Farrukhabad by order dated 12.5.2014 on the complaint filed by the petitioner.

¶7

Respondent no. 3 had filed an application on 11.8.2014 for cancelling the said ex parte order. The said application is stated to be pending. The petitioner had filed an objection that there is no power of review and consequently, the application filed by respondent no. 3 for cancelling the order dated 12.5.2014 is liable to be rejected. It is alleged that the said objection is not being decided and respondent no. 2 is in hurry to allow the application filed by respondent no. 3. Accordingly, various prayers have been made in the instant petition.

¶8

Since the order dated 12.5.2014 records that it was being passed ex parte as respondent no. 3 had not appeared, therefore in case he is able to show that there was sufficient cause for nonappearance, then the application would be maintainable.

¶9

It is well settled that every Authority passing an order touching upon the rights of the parties, has power of procedural review as distinguished from substantive review. Thus, the objection filed in this behalf does not appear to have any force.

¶10

However, the instant order shall not be construed as expression of opinion by this Court that the application filed by respondent no. 3 is maintainable, or is liable to be allowed, inasmuch as, it

¶11

is a question of fact as to whether there was sufficient cause for non-appearance. The said aspect has to be examined by respondent no. 2 while considering the application, without being influenced by any observation made in the instant order.

¶12

At this stage, Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that respondent no. 2 be directed to decide the matter within a specified time frame.

¶13

Accordingly, we direct respondent no. 2 to decide the matter expeditiously and not later than eight weeks from the date of communication of the instant order.

¶14

The petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶15

(Jayant Banerji, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

¶16

Order Date :- 15.12.2022 Jaideep/-

¶17

Digitally signed by JAIDEEP BANERJEE Date: 2022.12.15 15:45:17 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kartik Chandra Mishra v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kartik Chandra Mishra v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Anil Mani Tripathi and 10 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Mohan Sahu Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Buddhsen Vs Smt. Meena Devi

M/S Asharaf Construction Vs State of U P and 5 Others

Ritu Viash Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Tasir Fatma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others