Dismissed¶¶16

Bajrang Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC2 Jul 2024/5732/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintainability of writ petition; mandamus to police authorities; consideration of representations dated 21.06.2024 and 03.06.2024; temporary injunction application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC pending before Civil Judge (Junior Division), Havali, Lucknow; status quo interim protection under Article 227 order dated 24-05-2024; Regular Suit No. 1140 of 2024 for permanent injunction; remedy before civil court; ingress and egress to House No. 3/359, Virak Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow; belongings and pets in custody of private respondent no. 4; writ dismissed as not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition, for the reliefs mentioned in the prayer clause, is not maintainable and is dismissed as such. ¶¶16

Bajrang Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:44788-DB

¶2

Court No. - 3

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5732 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Bajrang Bahadur Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajaay Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and learned Standing Counsel, who appears on behalf of the State-respondents.

¶7

In view of the order proposed to be passed, the issuance of notice to opposite party no. 4 is dispensed with.

¶8

This writ petition has been filed with the following main prayer :-

¶9

"(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to consider representations dated 21.06.2024 and 03.06.2024 as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the Writ Petition and in the light of the order dated 24.05.2024 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No. 2556 of 2024 contained in Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition may be pleased to direct the opposite parties police authorities that they may in their presence allow the peaceful egrees and ingress to the petitioner and his family to the property in dispute in question(House No. 3/359, Virak Khand, Police Station Gomti Nagar, Luknow) so that they may be able to collect their belongings and invaluable lying under lock and keys unauthorizedly by the opposite party No. 4 and further take care of their pets who are in the custody of opposite party No. 4."

¶10

It is the case of the petitioner that he has filed a civil suit for permanent injunction before the Civil Judge(Junior Division), Havali, Lucknow, namely Regular Suit No. 1140 of 2024, Bajranj Bahadur Singh Vs. Shanti Prakash, in which, only notices were issued by the learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Havali, Lucknow and the application for temporary injunction was not decided and therefore, the petitioner had approached this court in petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of

¶11

India bearing no. 2256 of 2024, Bajrang Bahadur Singh Vs. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Havali, Lucknow and Another. This court while considering the matter on 24-05-2024, directed the Civil Judge(Junior Division), Havali, Lucknow to decide the application for temporary injunction filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, expeditiously, within a period of six weeks from the date, service report is furnished and till suitable orders are passed by the trial court on the application for interim injunction, the parties were directed to maintain status-quo over the property in dispute, as existed on the date of passing of the order dated 24-05-2024. The court also clarified that as and when the interim injunction application of the petitioner is considered and decided by the Civil Judge, the interim protection given to the petitioner, shall cease to exist.

¶12

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that despite this interim order being passed by this court, the Civil Judge(Junior Division)Havali, Lucknow, has not decided the application for temporary injunction. The petitioner has approached the Police Commissioner and the Station House OfÏcer of the police station concerned alongwith the copy of the order passed by this court dated 24-05-2024 and the police had also summoned the private respondent no. 4, but, the private respondent no. 4 is not letting the petitioner to enter the house in question.

¶13

It has been prayed that this writ petition has been filed only with an innocuous prayer for a direction to be issued to the respondents i.e. the Police Commissioner and the Station House Commissioner concerned to consider the representation made by the petitioner and to act appropriately.

¶14

This court is of the considered opinion that till date, the application for temporary injunction filed by the petitioner, has not been decided by the Civil Judge(Junior Division)Havali, Lucknow, where Regular Suit No. 1140 of 2024, is pending. There is already an interim protection granted to the petitioner by the order passed by this court dated

¶15

24-05-2024.

¶16

The writ petition, for the reliefs, as mentioned in the prayer clause, is not maintainable. It is dismissed as such.

¶17

Order Date :- 2.7.2024 AKS

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Bajrang Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bajrang Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar and Another Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Housing and Urban Affairs, New Delhi and 5 Others

Satya Narayan Chaurasiya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Law and L.R. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

C/M Navyug Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. Meerut Thru. Director Vijay Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt.of Cooperative , Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Chandan Jaiswal Vs General Manager/Member Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.andANR

Raju Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Others

Mr. Anil Kumar Yadava Vs M/S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Thru. Head of Division Office Lko. and Others