Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. ANIT @ ANITA CHATURVEDI versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' SECY. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Anit @ Anita Chaturvedi v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. & Others - WRIT - C No. 60037 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 4781 (28 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

Hon'ble Vineet Saran,J

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri Abhay Raj Singh, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent no.6. In view of the nature of the order which is being passed, notices to the other private respondents are not being issued. In case the said respondents are so aggrieved, they may file an application for recall/modification/variation of this order.

By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the result of the election of the Gram Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat in question.

Sri Abhay Raj Singh, learned counsel for the contesting respondent no.6 has pointed out to this Court that the petitioner has filed an election petition under section 12 (C) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act 1947 which is pending before the Respondent no.2. The said position is not disputed to the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, it is submitted that the election petition may be disposed of expeditiously as the election to the office of Gram Pradhan for a fixed term and in case if the election petition is not decided within a time bound period the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction that the Respondent no.2 shall hear and decide the election petition of the petitioner, in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order before him, and if necessary, proceed to hear the matter on day-to-day basis.

With the aforesaid observation/direction this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to cost.

Dt/-28.2.2006

Ru/w.p.60037.05


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.