Disposed

Jakir Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2024A227/3184/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Article 227 sought expedited disposal of a pending recall application. The Court directed the lower authority to decide the matter within three months without unnecessary adjournments, subject to the petitioner furnishing an undertaking against seeking adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Direction to decide pending recall application expeditiously within 3 months.

Jakir Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:52981

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3184 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Jakir Ali

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta

¶6

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. Sri Pankaj Gupta learned counsel has received notice on behalf of respondent no.3.

¶8

In view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, notice to the private-respondents No.4 to 6 is dispensed with.

¶9

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of the recall application dated 06.06.2022 pending in Case No.131 (Computerized Case no.T201902570205330) pending before the respondent No.2.

¶10

Learned standing counsel submits that he has no objection in case an expedite order is passed.

¶11

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to furnish an undertaking that the petitioner will not seek any unnecessary adjournment and shall also cooperate in the early disposal of the aforesaid case.

¶12

Considering 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 finally decide the pending recall application dated 06.06.2022 in Case No.131 (Computerized Case no.T201902570205330) most expeditiously, affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties preferably within a period of 3 months from the date an authenticated copy of this order is placed before the authority concerned.

¶13

The petitioner shall also furnish an undertaking, as mentioned above, along with a copy of this order. In case, if the petitioner

¶14

does not furnish the aforesaid undertaking, then the petitioner shall not be entitled to the benefit of this order.

¶15

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the authority concerned shall be free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.

¶16

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of .

¶17

Order Date :- 2.8.2024 Harshita

¶18

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

Jakir Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jakir Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and 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

Baliram Vs State of Up Thru. Prin. Secy., Revenue and others

Rajesh Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 6 Others

Saif Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Poonam Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko. and 7 Others

Nidhi Lata vs Shri Pramod Nigam

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