Chikan Kadhai Audhyogik Sahkari Samite Ltd. Sitapur Thru. Secretary v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supply Lko and 5 Others

Allahabad HC29 Aug 2024CMRAD/156/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Bench recalled the rejection of a review application filed by the applicant after the high court's writ petition was allowed regarding opportunity of hearing grounds. The court condoned the filing delay but rejected the contention of a coordinate bench's different view as a valid ground for review before dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The review application is dismissed as misconceived; delay in filing is condoned.

Chikan Kadhai Audhyogik Sahkari Samite Ltd… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:59045

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 156 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Chikan Kadhai Audhyogik Sahkari Samite Ltd. Sitapur Thru. Secretary Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food And Civil Supply Lko And 5 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Umesh Chandra Vishwakarma,Chhatrapal Rawat Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Order on Civil Misc. (Delay Condonation) Application No. 1 of 2024

¶7

Learned counsel for the review applicant has pressed the application for condonation of delay in filing present review application. It is submitted that the writ petition was allowed by means of order dated 04.07.2024 and same was corrected by means of order dated 31.07.2024. It is submitted that if delay in filing the review application is calculated from 31.07.2024, then infact no delay has been caused. However, it is submitted that delay, if any, caused in filing present review application is not deliberate and intentional and same may be condoned.

¶8

Perused the application as well as affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application.

¶9

Delay condonation application is allowed. Delay, if any, caused in filing present review application is hereby condoned.

¶10

Order on Review Application

¶11

Heard Sri Umesh Chandra Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the review applicant.

¶12

By means of present review application the applicant seeks review of judgment and order of this Court dated 04.07.2024.

¶13

While deciding the said case at the behest of respondent no. 6, this Court had allowed the writ petition and set aside the appellate order only on the ground that petitioner therein was admittedly subsequent allottee and had not been granted opportunity of hearing at the appellate stage. In the light of

¶14

judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Others, rendered in Civil Appeal No. 4258 of 2022.

¶15

It is submitted by the learned counsel for review applicant that different view has been taken any another coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ - C No. 4483 of 2024 - Rajesh Vs. State of U.P. (decided on 21.05.2024).

¶16

Considering the arguments of the review applicant, this Court is of the considered view that in case any different view is taken by any coordinate Bench, same cannot be a ground for maintaining an application for review.

¶17

Accordingly, this Court does not find any valid reason for entertaining the application for review, in the light of subsequent judgment of the coordinate Bench. No other ground has been urged by the petitioner.

¶18

Accordingly, application for review is misconceived and hence rejected .

¶19

Order Date :- 29.8.2024 A. Verma

¶20

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶21

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

Chikan Kadhai Audhyogik Sahkari Samite Ltd. Sitapur Thru. Secretary v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supply Lko and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chikan Kadhai Audhyogik Sahkari Samite Ltd. Sitapur Thru. Secretary v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supply Lko and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohd. Azam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical Education and Training U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Ramharaakh vs Satyendra Kumar, D.M. / Collector, Barabanki

Sanjeev Kumar Sinha and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Secretariat Administration Deptt. and 10 Others

Ashutosh Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Anand Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Horticulture U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

G.C.R.G. Memorial Trust Lucknow Thru. Authorized Signatory Sri Amar Nath Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Technical Education, Lko. and 3 Others