Disposed

Vinod Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC2 Dec 2024/4876/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 227 concerning an ex parte order, the High Court dispensed with notice to private respondents and directed the authority to decide a pending stay vacation application expeditiously while refraining from granting unnecessary adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent No.2 to decide the pending stay vacation application expeditiously after affording full opportunity of hearing without unnecessary adjournments.

Vinod Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:79771

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4876 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Lal Bahadur Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Supplementary-afÏdavit filed by the petitioners is taken on record.

¶7

Submission of the counsel for the petitioners is that an ex parte order has been passed by the respondent no.2 and despite an application seeking recall of the said order is pending adjudication and the same has not been adjudicated or disposed of and in such circumstances, it is prayed that some appropriate direction be issued so that the application of the petitioners, a copy of which has been brought on record as annexure no.1 may be decided expeditiously.

¶8

Considering the aforesaid relief, this Court does not deem appropriate to keep the matter pending and for the said reason notice to the private respondents no.3 to 6 is dispensed with.

¶9

In view of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no gainful purpose will be served in keeping the aforesaid petition pending rather ends of justice can be served by directing the respondent No.2 to consider and decide the pending stay vacation application dated 24.05.2024 in appeal No.02638 of 2023 (Chandrajeet and others vs. Vinod and another) as expeditiously as possible, after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶10

It is made clear that the Court has not examined

¶11

the case of the petitioner on merits and the authority concerned shall be free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.

¶12

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of .

¶13

Order Date :- 2.12.2024 ank

¶14

Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vinod Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mukesh Kumar Pandey vs Tehsildar Judicial, Tehsil Rudauli, Ayodhya and Another

Tilak Chandra Soni vs Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow Thru. Chairman and 4 Others

Vikram Singh and 3 Others vs Dy. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi and 4 Others

Ayub Khan Vs Divisional Commissioner, Ayodhya and 4 Others

Riyaz Ahmad Khan and Others Vs District Magistrate / District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Balrampur and Others

Vineet Kumar Vs Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Hardoi and 9 Others