Disposed

Kishori Lal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 Apr 2022WRIC/4529/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the inordinate delay in concluding suspension proceedings, noting a two-month statutory limit was ignored. Criticizing the State's lack of diligence, the court disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondent to conclude the proceedings within three weeks after hearing the petitioner and recording reasons, followed by communicating the order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no.3 to conclude suspension proceedings within three weeks after hearing the petitioner and recording reasons.

Kishori Lal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 38

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4529 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Kishori Lal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sachchidanand Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Kumar Gupta

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sachchidanand Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respodents.

¶6

Grievance of the petitioner is that the proceedings arising from the suspension order dated 01.05.2019 have remained pending for almost three years against the statutory time limit of two months. In that regard, the petitioner had first assailed the suspension order dated 01.05.2019 by means of appeal no.307 of 2019 (Kishori Lal Vs SDM & Others). The appeal itself has been decided on 10.01.2022.

¶7

While challenge raised to the order dated 10.01.2022 may not be sustained in face of fact allegation existing against the petitioner, however, it is wholly unacceptable that despite statutory time limitation of two months and further time of fifteen days granted under the order dated 10.01.2022, the proceedings have remained pending till date.

¶8

By the last order, learned Standing Counsel was required to obtain instructions to produce copy of the order sheet of the suspension proceedings. Today, learned Standing Counsel prays for further time to comply with that order. The conduct of the State is not appreciated. First, unreasonable time has been consumed in keeping the suspension proceedings

¶9

pending and now unreasonable time has been sought to inform the Court about the correct status of the proceedings.

¶10

That apart in view of the observations made above, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present petition pending or calling for a counter affidavit, at this stage.

¶11

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction upon respondent no.3 to necessarily conclude the proceedings arising from the suspension notice, within a period of three weeks from today, after hearing the petitioner and recording due reasons for the conclusions that may be reached.

¶12

Copy of such order may be communicated to the petitioner within the same time.

¶13

Order Date :- 5.4.2022 S.Chaurasia

¶14

Digitally signed by SHUBHAM CHAURASIA Date: 2022.04.05 17:55:05 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kishori Lal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishori Lal 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Suryansh Educational Research Training and Development Society Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

M/S Ganpati Gun House Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sajjan Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Hasrattulnisha Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Panchayat and 4 Others

M/S Brij Raj Traders Galla Vyapari Thru. a.K.Maheshwari Vs Commissioner Commercial Tax

Smt. Asha Devi Vs Mamta Yadav and 7 Others