Disposed

Ramesh v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC16 Aug 2023WRIC/22949/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court, noting a pending restoration application since 2013, dispensed with notice and disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondent Tehsildar to decide the application expeditiously within three months, without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent No. 4 to decide the pending Restoration Application within three months of the certified copy of this order.

Ramesh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:165007

¶2

Court No. - 37

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22949 of 2023 Petitioner :- Ramesh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Lalit Chaudhary,Rama Shankar Singh,Vijay Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the State respondents.

¶6

Considering the nature of the order proposed to be passed notices upon the private respondents is hereby dispensed with.

¶7

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his Restoration Application No. 00002/2013 (Computerized No. 201317140300002 (Ramesh Chandra vs. Sursati), is pending since 2013, before the respondent No. 4 i.e. Nayab Tehsildar Circle Saughat, Tehsil-Basti, District-Basti, and the purpose of filing present writ petition shall stands served if the appropriate directions are issued to the respondent respondent No. 4 i.e. Nayab Tehsildar Circle Saughat, Tehsil-Basti, District-Basti, to decide the restoration application of the petitioner within the time frame fixed by this Court.

¶8

Learned counsel representing the respondents have no objection the aforesaid proposition.

¶9

Considering the fact that the representation of the petitioners is pending since long this Court is also of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending and the same is accordingly disposed of by requiring the respondent No. 4 i.e. Nayab Tehsildar Circle Saughat, Tehsil-Basti, District-Basti, seized with the Restoration Application No. 00002/2013 (Computerized No. 201317140300002 (Ramesh Chandra vs. Sursati), to consider and decide the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months, from the date of production of certified copy of order of this Court, strictly in accordance with law.

¶10

Needless to say that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and it shall be open for the respondent No. 4 i.e. Nayab Tehsildar Circle Saughat, Tehsil-Basti, District-Basti to pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law.

¶11

Order Date :- 16.8.2023 Deepak/

¶12

Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramesh v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

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

Smt. Manuhar Pandey and 2 Others Vs Additional Commissioner (Administration) Varanasi Division and 3 Others

Sanjay Saini Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pawan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kanti Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashraf Ali Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Umashankar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others