Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. MANJU MEHRA versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Manju Mehra v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 10099 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 4255 (22 February 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. 30

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10099 of 2006

Smt. Manju Mehra                       ----                   Petitioner

Vs.

State of U.P. and others        ------               Respondents.

----

Hon'ble V.C.Misra, J.

Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar Sharma, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Ashok Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of this case.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the oral termination order issued by respondent no. 5- Manager, Bata Shoe Store, Sanjay Palace, Agra against the petitioner and further for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the post of clerk.

Respondents no. 2 to 5 are neither State nor instrumentality of the State nor person or authority imbued with Public Law element but simply private bodies. Respondent no. 1- the State of U.P. has been purposely impleaded as party in this case though no relief has been sought against it nor any grievance has been disclosed by the petitioner against it in the writ petition. This writ petition has been filed on the advise of Sri Ashok Gupta, learned Advocate who has put considerable years of practice in this Court and he is not expected to give such advise to file the writ petition which is not maintainable at all. It seems that the impleadment of the State of U.P. as respondent no. 1 is with meaningful purpose. Such practice is highly deprecated.  This writ petition being misconceived is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Under the said circumstances the writ petition is dismissed with special costs quantified at Rs. 5000/- (Rs. five thousand only) against   Sri Ashok Gupta, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner which shall be deposited by him before the Registrar General of this Court within one month from today in the Account standing in the name of "High Court Legal Services Committee, Allahabad". It is made clear that in case of default as provided above, the Registrar General of this Court shall proceed to recover the said amount from him as arrears of land revenue.

Dt. 22.2.2006

Kdo (wp 10099/06)


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.