Disposed

Smt Prakasho Devi v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC10 Apr 2023WRIC/11673/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the Writ Petition Nodisposition since, according to the Court, no useful purpose would be served. The petitioner, claiming ownership of property and alleging illegal encroachment with a threat perception, was directed to move an appropriate application before the District Level Committee as per the law. The Court cited a previous judgmentShrikant Tyagi vs. State of UP an

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to move an appropriate application before the District Level Committee within two weeks for security cover.

Smt Prakasho Devi Vs State of U.P. and 7… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11673 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt Prakasho Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Varun Mishra,Kamla Kant Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners claim to be owner of property in question. As there is illegal encroachment in the property in question, petitioner has moved a detailed representation before Police Authorities, which is appended as Annexure-7 and 8 to the Writ Petition but no action has been taken. He submits that as there is threat perception to him and only in this background, the aforesaid representation was made.

¶7

Learned Standing Counsel for the State Respondent has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the Writ Petition on the ground that the State Government has issued a Government order dated 9th May, 2014 for providing security, which provides that actual threat perception should exist and that on a mere apprehension security could not be provided. Further, the background, antecedent, criminal history and misuse of security are also relevant considerations to be examined objectively firstly by the District Level Committee. While considering the application for grant of security cover, the background antecedents, criminal history and misuse of security are relevant considerations, which are to be examined firstly by the District Level Committee. In case, the applicant is aggrieved with the order of District Level Committee, he can approach the Regional Level Committee and thereafter the State Level Committee.

¶8

In Writ C No.32729 of 2016 (Shrikant Tyagi vs. State of UP and 3 ors.) decided on 20.7.2016, this Court has observed that if the threat perception is still being received, it is open to the petitioner to move an application as per the Government Order dated 9.5.2014. In case any application is moved by the petitioner, it is

¶9

always expected that the district authority concerned will consider the said application in accordance with law.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending consideration. The writ petition is disposed of asking the petitioner to move an appropriate Application as contemplated under law before the District Level Committee. In case, such application is moved by the petitioner within two weeks, the same shall be processed within four weeks further time but certainly after taking necessary comments from all the stake holders in the matter.

¶11

Order Date :- 10.4.2023 A. Pandey

¶12

Digitally signed by :- ANAND PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt Prakasho Devi v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Prakasho Devi v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bijendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Deepak Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sanjay Sharma Vs Union of India and 4 Others

Rajveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bhaiya Lal Vs State of U.P. and others

Arvind Yadav Vs Regional Transport Authority Mirzapur and 3 Others