Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. SADHANA SAXENA versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Sadhana Saxena v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 68702 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 21333 (18 December 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 68702 of 2006

Smt. Sahana Saxena

Versus

State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J

Petitioner has approached this Court questioning the validity of the order dated 03.10.2006 by means of which Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Gautam Budha Nagar has order order directing Hari Bhusan Tiwari, respondent no. 7, Chakbandi, Lekhpal to function as Peshkar(is'kdkj ) in the Court of Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Dadari, on the letter of State Revenue Minister.

Brief background of the case is that petitioner as well as Hari Bhusan Tiwari, respondent no. 7, both had been endeavoring to function as Peshkar(is'kdkj ) in the office of Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Dadari. Both incumbent it appears, got political pressure exerted through State Revenue Minister. Such political pressure, exerted in the matter is not at all solicited and it is always open to the authority concerned to make arrangements as permissible under the law.

In the present case Settlement Officer Consolidation has not acted independently rather to the contrary, on the directives issued by the State Revenue Minister, order has been sought to be passed. Petitioner as well as Hari Bhusan Tiwari, respondent no. 7 have tried to exert political pressure which is unbecoming of Government Servant and as Settlement Officer Consolidation has not been exercised its own independent discretion  as such Consolidation Commissioner U.P. at Lucknow, respondent no. 2 is directed to look into the matter and take appropriate decision on the same within next six weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. It is made clear that earlier action taken by Settlement Officer of Consolidation shall abide by fresh order which would be taken by the Consolidation Commissioner, U.P. at Lucknow respondent no.1.

Subject to above direction present writ petition is dismissed.

No orders as to cost.

18.12.2006

Dhruv


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.