Disposed

Deepak Jain v. State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Uttarakhand HC21 Apr 2015WPCRL/466/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a criminal writ petition seeking quashing of orders passed for non-appearance. It granted a two-week stay on impugned orders, directed the petitioner to reply to the show cause notice within that period, and allowed the District Magistrate to pass an ex-parte order if no response is received.

What did the court decide?

Stayed the impugned orders for two weeks; directed the petitioner to reply to the show cause notice within that period.

Deepak Jain Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Uttarakhand HC (2015)

¶1

WPCRL No.466 of 2015

¶2

Hon’ble U. C. Dhyani, J.

¶3

Mr. M. S. Pal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, Advocate present for the petitioner.

¶4

Mr. Raman Kumar Sah, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Kuldeep Rawal, Brief Holder present for the State. By means of present criminal writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the impugned orders dated 13.02.2015 and 16.04.2015 passed by respondent no.3/District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar and respondent no.2/Commissioner, Kumaun Region, Nainital respectively.

¶5

It is an admitted fact that pursuant to the issuance of notice, the petitioner did not appear before the District Magistrate and, therefore, the District Magistrate was constrained to pass the impugned order dated 13.02.2015. This fact is reflected in the impugned order that after the service of notice on 26.01.2012, the petitioner sought time on numerable occasions to reply the notice, but did not reply the same. The said fact is also reflected in the order passed by the Commissioner, Kumaun Region, Nainital.

¶6

The reason attributed to such default is that the petitioner was in jail since 22.03.2013 to 04.02.2014. According to the information supplied by learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has now been released from the jail.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner has given an undertaking that the petitioner shall definitely reply the notice issued to him.

¶8

The criminal writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself by directing the petitioner to reply the show cause notice within two weeks from today whereafter the

¶9

District Magistrate shall pass the appropriate order according to law. If the petitioner does not respond to the notice within the stipulated period, the District Magistrate will be at liberty to pass an ex-parte order against the petitioner. For a period of two weeks from today, the effect and operation of impugned orders dated 13.02.2015 and 16.04.2015 passed by respondent no.3/District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar and respondent no.2/Commissioner, Kumaun Region, Nainital respectively shall remain stayed.

¶10

Let a certified copy of this order be supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner today itself, on payment of usual charges.

¶11

(U. C. Dhyani, J.)

¶12

Dated 21.04.2015

¶13

Rawat

Deepak Jain v. State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Jain v. State Of Uttarakhand 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

Similar cases

Mahesh Patel Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Amar Singh Vs Drugendra Kumar Mishra

Binod Kumar Chauhan Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Smt. Shyama Devi and Others Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Gulfam Vs State Of Uttrakhand

Devi Chand Vs State Of Uttarakhand