Disposed

Sundar Lal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC17 Oct 2023WRIC/35993/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition in a case where the petitioner sought a direction for expeditious decision by authorities regarding a representation. The court dismissed the petition without expressing an opinion on merits but directed the authority to decide the fresh representation within six weeks if filed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of. The petitioner was directed to move a fresh representation before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, to be decided within six weeks.

Sundar Lal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:202147-DB

¶2

Court No. - 40

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 35993 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Sundar Lal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Tirpathi,Mahendra Kumar Shukla,Vijay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary corrections in the memo of petition regarding array of parties during the course of the day and implead the new respondent.

¶7

Heard Shri Vijay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Uttara Bahuguna, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶8

The petitioner has prayed for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing/commanding the respondent no. 2 to decide the representation dated 18.06.2021 within stipulated time.

¶9

In pith and substance, the petitioner is confined his prayer that his representation/application dated 18.06.2021 which is moved before Superintendent of Police, District- Rampur for redressal of his grievance may be decided expeditiously. He submits that as the private respondents had instituted an Original Suit for injunction bearing O.S. No. 32 of 2005 and the same was rejected by the court below vide judgement and order dated 04.04.2014 and at no point of time, the same has been assailed to higher forum. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents have no right, title or claim but, they are harassing the petitioner.

¶10

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel very fairly submits that, in case, any such representation is pending, the same would be decided by the concerned authority.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue and with the consent of counsel for the parties, the writ petition stands disposed of , in case, the petitioner moves a fresh representation before the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate within a week's time, the

¶12

same would be considered and decided by the concerned authority on merits strictly in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, but certainly after giving opportunity to all the stakeholders in the matter.

¶13

Order Date :- 17.10.2023 Rama Kant

¶14

Digitally signed by :- RAMAKANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sundar Lal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sundar Lal v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Anita Devi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Asha Devi Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Shyam Singh and 18 Others Vs Union of India and 6 Others

Virjhan Alias Virjhan Yadav and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kiran Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Lokendra Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others