Disposed

Rajeev Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC22 Jan 2024A227/280/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court observed that an appeal by a private-respondent had been listed repeatedly without hearing or decision. It directed the subordinate authority to dispose of the matter strictly in accordance with law within three months without granting unnecessary adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No.2 to decide the pending appeal of private-respondent No.5 expeditiously within three months.

Rajeev Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:6080

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 280 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Rajeev Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 4 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel.

¶7

In view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, notice to the private-respondent No.5 is dispensed with.

¶8

The petitioner has approached this Court with limited prayer that an appeal has been filed by the private-respondent No.5 before the respondent No.2 wherein the parties have put in appearance and the record is also available, yet the matter is being listed repeatedly for arguments but the same has not yet been heard and the matter has not yet been decided.

¶9

It is in the aforesaid circumstances, it is prayed that the appeal preferred by the private-respondent No.5 be expedited.

¶10

Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from the perusal of the material on record, this Court finds 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 appeal preferred by the private-respondent No.5 as expeditiously as possible after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties preferably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the respondent No.2.

¶11

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the respondent No.2 shall decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.

¶12

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of .

¶13

Order Date :- 22.1.2024 Rakesh/-

¶14

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

Rajeev Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 4 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Krishna Kant Vs Competent Authority/Principal Secy. Deptt. of Urban Housing and Planning,Lko. and 4 Others

Ram Nayak Alias Ram Nayak Tiwari and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 9 Others

Amarjeet Kaur and 2 Others Vs Civil Judge Senior Division Malihabad Lko. and Another

Vijay Bahadur Maurya vs Civil Judge (Junior Division) South Court No. 24 Sultanpur and Others

Masood Ashraf and 2 Others vs Chief Judicial Magistrate Ambedkar Nagar and 3 Others

Vajid Ali vs Fast Track Court (Junior Division) Sultanpur and 5 Others