Disposed

Sarvesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies U.P. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Dec 2023/11022/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition where the petitioner sought time to file a response to a suspension order. It directed the petitioner to reply within two weeks, after which the authority must decide within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the petitioner to file response within two weeks. Ordered the authority to decide within six weeks thereafter.

Sarvesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies U.P. Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:83887

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11022 of 2023 Petitioner :- Sarvesh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food And Civil Supplies U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Mukul Kumar Sharma,Mohit Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 has been accepted by the office of the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

¶6

At the outset, Sri Devendra Mohan Shukla, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that though the petitioner has assailed the suspension order but in the same order itself time was granted to the petitioner to furnish his reply which has not been done till date.

¶7

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be granted two weeks' time within which he shall file his response before the respondent no. 2 and the same may be directed to be decided within some time spam.

¶8

Apparently, the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is innocuous but this Court does not deem it appropriate to keep the matter pending, hence, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file his response to the notice dated 21.10.2023 with the respondent no. 2 within a period of two weeks from today. In case if such response is filed by the petitioner, the respondent no. 2 shall consider and decide the same within a period of six weeks thereafter after affording full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and taking note of the contentions which may be raised by the petitioner before it.

¶9

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the Authority concerned shall decide the same strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and law.

¶10

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of .

¶11

Order Date :- 18.12.2023 Asheesh

¶12

Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sarvesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarvesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Subhag Vs Smt. Urmila and 11 Ors.

Bhawani Prasad Vs Sheo Kumar and Others

Kashi Ram and Others Vs Kishori Lal and Anr.

Divya Prakash Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Rahat Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supply, Civil Sectt. Lko. and 3 Others

Hariram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Public Works Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 10 Others