Disposed

Saibaba Temple Gram Katara and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC17 Aug 2023WRIC/24079/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking directions to the Respondent Commissioner to decide a pending stay application and a revision petition within specified time limits.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent No. 2 to decide the stay application within one month and the revision within four months from the date of service of this order.

Saibaba Temple Gram Katara and Another Vs State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:165247

¶2

Court No. - 37

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24079 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Saibaba Temple Gram Katara And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anant Vijay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Azad Rai

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to make necessary correction in the prayer clause of the writ petition during the course of the day.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Azad Rai, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 & 5 and Shri Anand Bhaskar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶8

Considering the nature of the controversy involved in the present writ petition, the service of notice upon the private respondents are being dispensed with.

¶9

The limited prayer made by the petitioners in the present writ petition is for issuance of an appropriate direction to the respondent No. 2 to decide the stay application dated 9.12.2020 and Revision No. C202002000001024 (Saibaba Temple versus Sunderlal and another) pending in the court of Commissioner, Prayagraj Mandal, Prayagraj within the time frame fixed by this Court.

¶10

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has filed the stay application dated 9.12.2020 along with revision challenging the order dated 14.8.2019 before respondent No. 2. Several dates in this case has been fixed for hearing of revision on the ground of maintainability, but till date the same has not been heard and on account of the same, stay application as well as revision is pending consideration.

¶11

Learned counsels appearing for the respondents submit that the case of the petitioners shall be decided by the respondents within the time frame fixed by this Court.

¶12

Considering the innocuous prayer made by the petitioners for

¶13

expeditious disposal of the aforesaid revision as well as stay application and also taking into consideration the fact that case of the petitioners are pending since long, the writ petition is disposed of by requiring the respondent No. 2 seized with the stay application dated 9.12.2020 and Revision No. C202002000001024 (Saibaba Temple versus Sunderlal and another) to consider and decide the stay application within a period of one month and revision within a period of next four months, from the date of service of certified copy of this order, strictly in accordance with law, without giving any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶14

Order Date :- 17.8.2023 Ravi Prakash

¶15

(Ashutosh Srivastava, J.)

¶16

Digitally signed by :- RAVI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Saibaba Temple Gram Katara and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saibaba Temple Gram Katara and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Kanti Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Ramesh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Manager and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Chandra Prakash Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Smt. Reeta Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others