Disposed

Vinod Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC17 Oct 2024A227/4876/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 227 regarding an undiscussed ex parte order, the Court dispensed with notice to private respondents and directed the authority to dispose of a pending stay vacation application expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments. The petition was disposed of without examining the petitioner's case on merits.

What did the court decide?

The Court directed respondent No.2 to decide the pending stay vacation application expeditiously after full hearing, dispensing with notice to private respondents.

Vinod Kumar and Another vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:79771

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4876 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Lal Bahadur Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Supplementary-affidavit filed by the petitioners is taken on record.

¶7

Submission of the counsel for the petitioners is that an ex parte order has been passed by the respondent no.2 and despite an application seeking recall of the said order is pending adjudication and the same has not been adjudicated or disposed of and in such circumstances, it is prayed that some appropriate direction be issued so that the application of the petitioners, a copy of which has been brought on record as annexure no.1 may be decided expeditiously.

¶8

Considering the aforesaid relief, this Court does not deem appropriate to keep the matter pending and for the said reason notice to the private respondents no.3 to 6 is dispensed with.

¶9

In view of 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 stay vacation application dated 24.05.2024 in appeal No.02638 of 2023 (Chandrajeet and others vs. Vinod and another) as expeditiously as possible, after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶10

It is made clear that the Court has not examined

¶11

the case of the petitioner on merits and the authority concerned shall be free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.

¶12

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of .

¶13

Order Date :- 2.12.2024 ank

¶14

Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vinod Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, 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

Awadhesh Kumar vs Deputy Director of Consolidation / Addl. Collector (Finance and Revenue Lakhimpur Khiri and Another

Ramkrishna Jaladhar Parai Vs Union of India Thru. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Zonal Unit Lko

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

Ashok Kumar Verma and Another vs Shri Sunil Kumar Batra and 3 Others

Kameshwar Prasad and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

M/S Rausheena Udyog Ltd. through its authorised signatory Kamal Nath Jha vs Secretary, Bal Vikas Seva Evam Pushtahar Vibhag and Anr.