Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. SANTOSH AGRAWAL AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Santosh Agrawal And Another v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 72023 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 7794 (17 April 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. Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

This Writ Petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 9th February, 2005 which has been passed by the competent authority Construction Division No.36, U.P. Avas & Vikas Parishad, Bareilly.

On 23rd November, 2005 while entertaining this petition time to file the counter affidavit was granted as it was noticed that the impugned order was a cyclostyled order dismissing the objection of the petitioner in one sentence by stating that they are without any substance.

Till date no counter affidavit has been filed, though a period of about four months has already expired.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the impugned order is liable to be set aside inasmuch as no reasons have been indicated as to why the objections filed by the petitioner have been rejected.

We find considerable force in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner as the order impugned does not indicate any reason why the objections filed by the petitioner were not tenable.

This apart the respondents cannot provide reasons for passing the impugned order as has been held by the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors., AIR 1978 SC 851 and in State Government Houseless Harijan Employees Association Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. 2001 (1) SCC 610.

We, therefore, set aside the order dated 9th February, 2005, but leave it open to the authority to pass a fresh reasoned order in accordance with law after giving opportunity to the petitioners.

The Writ Petition succeeds and is allowed to the extent indicated above.

Dt/-17.4.2006

GS-72023


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.