Dismissed

Sadhoram Thru. His Legal Heirs and Representative, Satish Kumar v. Additional Commissioner, Administration, Prayagraj Mandal and Another

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2024A227/3078/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking expedition in Prayagraj proceedings, ruling that it lacked territorial jurisdiction as the matter was pending in Prayagraj. The court left the petition open with liberty to re-file at Prayagraj before including all parties.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; liberty to file before Prayagraj Bench with appropriate parties and pleadings.

Sadhoram Thru. His Legal Heirs and… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:45655

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3078 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Sadhoram Thru. His Legal Heirs And Representative, Satish Kumar Respondent :- Additional Commissioner, Administration, Prayagraj Mandal And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Srivastava,Deepak Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

At the outset, learned standing counsel has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the instant petition before this Court at Lucknow.

¶8

The submission is that the petitioner is said to have filed an appeal at Prayagraj which is engaging the attention of the respondent No.1, who has its seat at Prayagraj.

¶9

It has further been urged that a perusal of the memo of appeal which has been brought on record as Annexure No.1, it would indicate that apart from Mohd. Haroon, who has been impleaded as the sole private-respondent, there are other parties too, who have not been impleaded.

¶10

In the aforesaid circumstances, the petition is defective and moreover it also fall foul regarding the vice of territorial jurisdiction.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing at some length, could not dispute that the entire proceedings of which an expedition is sought is within the jurisdiction of this Court at Prayagraj, apart from the fact that the petitioner has not impleaded all the parties, who were parties to the appeal.

¶12

In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not deem appropriate to entertain the petition which is accordingly dismissed leaving it open with liberty for the petitioner to file the petition before this Court at Prayagraj with appropriate parties and pleadings which shall be considered and decided on its own merits.

¶13

Order Date :- 5.7.2024 Rakesh/-

¶14

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

Sadhoram Thru. His Legal Heirs and Representative, Satish Kumar v. Additional Commissioner, Administration, Prayagraj Mandal and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadhoram Thru. His Legal Heirs and Representative, Satish Kumar v. Additional Commissioner, Administration, Prayagraj Mandal and Another

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

Jhabbar and Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Faizabad/Ambedkarnagar andORS

Mohokha Devi and Another Vs Board of Revenue U.P. Lko Thru. Secy. and Others

Upendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vishambhar Dayal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Smt. Khusboo vs Shahjad

Sameer Husain vs U.P. Waqfs Tribunal, Lucknow Thru. Registrar, and 4 Others