Disposed

Ajay Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC29 Nov 2023WRIC/39877/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to direct the Nayab Tahsildar to decide a pending restoration application expeditiously. The High Court directed the officer to decide the petition within two months without expressing any opinion on the merits of the underlying case.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent No.2 to decide the restoration application dated 2.8.2022 in Case No.T202114700207692 after giving opportunity of hearing within two months.

Ajay Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:225659

¶2

Court No. - 51

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39877 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gyanedra Pratap Singh,Manish Prajapati Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Manish Prajapati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sarvam Dwivedi, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶7

The instant petition has been filed for mandamus directing the respondent no.2 i.e. Nayab Tahsildar, Tahsil- Pindra, District- Varanasi to decide the restoration application dated 2.8.2022 in Case No.T202114700207692 (Rampatti Devi Vs. Shravan Kumar), under Section 34/35 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within stipulated period.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforementioned mutation case has been decided in ex-parte manner, accordingly, within time restoration application dated 2.8.2022 against the order dated 23.7.2022 has been filed, which is pending before the Tahsildar even after expiry of more than one year. He further submitted that the copy of order sheet of the case has been annexed as Annexure No.4 to the petition in order to demonstrate that the case is not proceeding expeditiously.

¶9

Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case and keeping in view of the facts and circumstances, respondent no.2 is directed to decide the aforementioned restoration application dated 2.8.2022 in Case No.T202114700207692 (Rampatti Devi Vs. Shravan Kumar) after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him.

¶10

Accordingly, the writ petition is finally disposed of.

¶11

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the restoration application.

¶12

Order Date :- 29.11.2023 Rameez

¶13

Digitally signed by :- RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ajay Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Indrasen Rai Vs State of U.P. and 12 Others

Mahendra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Ashish and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bhola Nath (Since Deceased) and 12 others Vs State of U.P. and 9 others

Radhey Shyam Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Palla Das Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others