The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking arrears of a bill. Relying on Standing Counsel's instructions from the District Magistrate regarding partial payment and an assurance of expedited settlement of the balance, the Court declined to proceed further but directed the respondents to redress the grievance.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:206863-DB
Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33648 of 2023 Petitioner :- Chhotey Lal Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ganesh Shankar Dubey,Sachidanand Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
say, the respondents must redress the grievance of the petitioner in terms of the instructions expeditiously.
Order Date :- 30.10.2023 S.P.
Digitally signed by :- SANJAY PURI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/s Surya Construction vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.Explained¶8
M/s Surya Construction vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2019) 16 SCC 794 · Who else cites this
Chhotey Lal Yadav
State Of U.P.
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Prashant Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
