Dismissed

Rajesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC31 Jul 2024/6538/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking directions to dispose of an application for signature identification under the U.P. Revenue Code, the High Court held that the matter is already seized by the respondent authority. Petitioner's submission on lack of correspondence was dismissed, and the petition was left open and subsequently dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed; no direction was issued to the respondent authorities.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:52261

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6538 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 an 2 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel.

¶7

The petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking following reliefs:

¶8

"(i) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no.2 to dispose of the application dated 11.07.2024 which has been filed for identification of signature through hand writing expert before passing any order in the suit no.T202110460218186 under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 village Barawan Kala, Tehsil and District Lucknow, in the interest.

¶9

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no.2 to call for report of hand writing expert opinion for identification of the signature of marginal witnesses Rajesh Kumar and Mahadeen in the interest of justice."

¶10

Apparently, from perusal of the material available on record the proceedings are already engaging the attention of the respondent no.2.

¶11

The record further indicates that at the behest of the petitioner an order had been passed on 18.01.2024 and the parties were also directed to maintain status quo despite the same an application has been moved by the petitioner, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure no.1. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the petitioner submits that a direction be issued to respondent no.2 to decide the said application. There is nothing on record to indicate that any effort has been made by the petitioner informing the Court to decide the said application since the matter is already seized by the respondent

¶12

no.2/Naib Tehsildar Nagar, Tehsil Sadar, Lucknow.

¶13

In view of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition leaving it open for the petitioner to take recourse as may be available to him in law.

¶14

With the aforesaid, the petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 31.7.2024 Harshita

¶15

Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, 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

Rooplal Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi, and 3 Others

Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Govind Prasad and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Secrt. Lko. and 6 Others

Girija Dayal vs Deputy Director of Consolidation/Addl. District Magistrate F and R and Another

Anil Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ram Shankar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Home, Lucknow and Others