Disposed

Jiya Ram Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 15 Others

Allahabad HC10 Sept 2024WRIC/7817/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a direction to the opposite party to decide a stay vacation application expeditiously within three weeks after a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no.2 to decide the stay vacation application within three weeks after affording full hearing opportunity.

What the court decided

Jiya Ram Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:62465

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7817 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Jiya Ram Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. And 15 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents no.1, 2 and 3 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent no.4.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that he does not wish to press his relief no.1, however, his petition may be considered in so far as the relief no.2 is concerned which reads as under:-

¶8

"2. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the opposite party no.2 to decide the stay vacation application dated 28.08.2024 contained with the petition as Annexure no.2 within a stipulated time."

¶9

In view of the aforesaid, the petition is being considered only in so far as the relief no.2 is concerned. Since the petitioner press that the stay vacation application, a copy of which has been brought on record as annexure no.2 may be decided expeditiously, hence this Court without entering into the merits directs the respondent no.2 to consider and decide the stay vacation application after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties but without granted any unnecessary adjournments preferably within a period of three weeks, from the date a copy of this order is placed before the court concerned.

¶10

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the stay vacation application has been

¶11

decided on merits.

¶12

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of .

¶13

Order Date :- 10.9.2024 ank

¶14

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

Jiya Ram Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 15 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Jiya Ram Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 15 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pannalal Vs Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Kadipur, Sultanpur and Others

Ram Manoratha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

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

Palak Jain vs Praful Kumar Jain

Aman Deep Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue,Lko. and 3 Others

Sangram and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Home, Lucknow