Gokaran Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. the Pein. Secy. Home Lko and 4 Others

Allahabad HC20 Aug 2024CRLP/4326/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged orders passed on unserved beat information, alleging three pending cases from political rivalry and ignored certificates; appeal also mechanically rejected. Court found beat information not served and stayed the impugned order till next listing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 12.03.2024 stayed till next date of listing (20.08.2024).

Gokaran Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. the Pein… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 12

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4326 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Gokaran Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Pein. Secy. Home Lko And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

¶6

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:-

¶7

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 15.05.2024 and 12.03.2024 passed by opposite party nos.2 & 3.

¶8

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding opposite parties not to harass and torture the petitioner without any rhyme and reason."

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order was passed by Additional District Magistrate, Gonda on 12.03.2024 on the basis of beat information no. 45 dated 16.10.2018 but the said beat information was only provided to the petitioner at no point of time. He further submits that three cases are pending before the trial court lodged by different persons due to old political rivalry and the petitioner is aged about 65 years. He further submits that several persons had given certificates and all the certificates were annexed with the reply but not even a single certificate was considered by learned Additional District Magistrate, Gonda in the conclusion part of the order. He further submits that an appeal was also filed, which was rejected by Commissioner, Devi Patan, Gonda in the most mechanical manner without considering the fact that whether beat information no. 45 dated 16.10.2018 was served on the petitioner or not.

¶10

In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions of this Court passed in the case of Ramji Pandey vs. State of U.P. and others reported in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9437 of 1979 as well as in the case of Waqur vs. State of U.P. and 2 others reported in Crl.

¶11

Misc. Writ Petition No. 6145 of 2024 and in the case of Govardhan vs. State of U.P. reported in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 12619 of 2023 . After relying on the aforesaid judgements, he requests for indulgence of this Court.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that there is no illegality in the order passed by learned trial court. However, he is unable to show that the aforesaid beat information was served on the petitioner.

¶13

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the petition, impugned orders as well as other relevant enclosures; it is evident from the notice that beat information of the police dated 16.10.2018 was not served on the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order dated 12.03.2024 is hereby stayed till the next date of listing.

¶14

List this case on 20.08.2024.

¶15

In the meantime, learned A.G.A. may file counter affidavit.

¶16

Order Date :- 20.6.2024 Arpan

¶17

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

Gokaran Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. the Pein. Secy. Home Lko and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gokaran Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. the Pein. Secy. Home Lko and 4 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

Tappu Singh @ Gajendra Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Altaf @ Aftab vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Pravin @ Pravin Pal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Jay Prakash vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Shatrodhan @ Shatrohan and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Satendra @ Satyendra Patel vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another