In an Article 227 writ petition, the court dismissed the application as a misuse of process of law, noting the petitioner filed the underlying revision only one month prior with no inordinate delay.
Writ petition dismissed.
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. - 2024:AHC-LKO:36115
Court No. - 18
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2319 of 2024
Petitioner :- Chhotelal @ Chhotan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection regarding that the petitioner has filed a revision on 12.04.2024 i.e. about a month ago and has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition for issuing a direction to the revisional court to decide the matter within a stipulated time.
The petitioner has approached this Court within a period of one month from the date of filing of the revision, it is nothing but misuse of process of law. He must wait for his turn or hearing of his revision. There is no inordinate delay involved in hearing of his case.
In view of above, the present writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 10.5.2024 Nitesh
Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petition is a misuse of process of law as the petitioner filed the revision recently.
Whether a writ for directing the revisional court to decide within time is maintainable when no inordinate delay exists.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Chhotelal @ Chhotan
State Of U.P.
Manish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
