Dismissed

Hari Charitable and Religious Trust v. the State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC21 Nov 2017WP/1688/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by Hari Charitable Trust regarding inaction of authorities in allotting land for education. Petitioner sought to withdraw petition with liberty to challenge a specific previously unchallenged interim order dated 31.01.2009. Court allowed withdrawal with liberty.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to withdraw writ petition with liberty to challenge order dated 31.01.2009.

Hari Charitable and Religious Trust Vs the… — Education and Admissions | Chhattisgarh HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WP No. 1688 of 2004

¶5

Hari charitable and Religious Trust, Throught S.K. Juneja, S/o Late Dr. Haqri ram Juneja, Chariman, Hari Charitable and Religious Trust, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Housing and Urban Development, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.)

¶9

Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, through the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶10

The Collector, Bilaspur.

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner : Dr. N.K. Shukla, Senior Adv. And Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 & 3 : Mr. Arun Sao, Dy. Adv. General. For Respondent No. 2 : Ms. Pushpa Dwivedi, Advocate.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

Order On Board

21/11/17

Heard.

Dr.N.K.Shukla, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is aggrieved against the inaction of the respondent authorities who are not allotting the land in favour of the petitioner for education purpose and, therefore, the necessary direction be issued.

¶18

Mr. Arun Sao, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents No. 1 and 3 would submit that the order dated 31.01.2009 passed by respondent No. 2 has not been challenged in the writ petition and as such the writ petition as stands today is not maintainable unless the order dated

¶19

¶20

31.01.2009 is challenged.

¶21

At this stage, Dr. N.K. Shukla, would submit that he may be allowed to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to challenge the order dated 31.01.2009 in accordance with law.

¶22

The prayer appears to be fair and reasonable and is allowed.

¶23

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 31.01.2009 in accordance with law. No order as to cost(s).

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶26

Priyanka

Hari Charitable and Religious Trust v. the State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Charitable and Religious Trust v. the State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

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

Similar cases

Anurag Chandra Sao Vs Pt. Ravishankar University and Another

Raipur Development Authority Vs Smt.Gajra Bai and Ors.

Raipur Development Authority Vs Kachara Bai and Ors.

State of Chhattisgarh Vs M/S Chhattisgarh Distilleries Ltd.

Rajeev Grih Nir.Sah.Sam.Mary.Raipur Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Ram Lal Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.