Dismissed

Harishchandra Singh v. State of U.P Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC9 Sept 2024A227/4303/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a Special Leave Petition under Article 227 regarding a pending recall application under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The court issued an order to dispose a petition seeking expedited adjudication and directed the respondent to decide the recall application with full hearing opportunities without unnecessary adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.2 directed to consider and decide the pending recall application of the petitioner most expeditiously, affording full opportunity of hearing to parties.

Harishchandra Singh vs State of U.P Thru. Secy… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:61830

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4303 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Harishchandra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravindra Kumar Yadava,Neha Chaurasia,Ram Suphal

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶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.

¶8

In view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, notice to the private-respondents No.3 to 7 is dispensed with.

¶9

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of recall application moved by the petitioner in original Case No.T201904040401984, under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 pending before the respondent No.2.

¶10

It is submitted that though a large number of dates have been fixed, however, for the reasons beyond control, the recall application has not yet been decided.

¶11

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

¶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 decide the pending recall application of the petitioner most expeditiously, affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties preferably as expeditiously as possible.

¶13

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the Court concerned shall consider and decide the case of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law.

¶14

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of .

¶15

Order Date :- 9.9.2024 Rakesh/-

¶16

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

Harishchandra Singh v. State of U.P Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harishchandra Singh v. State of U.P Thru. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Lavkush Vs State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Amethi and Others

Tamheed Fatima Vs State of U.P., Thru. Chief Secy., Revenue and Ors.

Nattha @ Natthu Vs Village Panchayat Humayupur, Pargana and Tehsil Ramkot, Sitapur Thru. Secy.

Anshika Bajpai vs Akhilesh Tiwari

Smt. Ranjana Devi vs Tahsildar, Tahsil Kunda, Pratapgarh and Others

Ram Sumer vs Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil Kunda, Pratapgarh and Others