Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

UNION OF INDIA THRU' GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAY & ORS. versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE BAREILLY AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Union Of India Thru' General Manager Northern Railway & Ors. v. Additional District Judge Bareilly And Others - WRIT - C No. 24933 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 9086 (5 May 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 and perused the record. In view of the nature of the order which is being passed, notice to the other private respondent no.2 is not being issued. In case the said respondent is so aggrieved, he may file an application for recall/modification/variation of this order.

It is the case of the petitioner that by an order dated 10.10.1988 passed by the Estate Officer of the Railways a direction was issued to evict the respondent no.2 from the premises in dispute. Challenging the said order the respondent no.2 filed a M.A. Appeal No.175 of 1988 before the respondent no.1, in which an interim order has been granted. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that although the appeal has been filed 18 years back, the appellate authority is only granting the dates and not hearing the matter on merits. In support thereof the petitioner has filed a copy of the order sheet of the appellate court as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and keeping in view that the appeal is pending before the respondent no.1 for the last 18 years and the interim order has been granted in favour of the appellant, this writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction that the appellate authority shall decide M.A. Appeal No.175 of 1988 (M/s Kumar Sales and Service Nekpur, Bareilly Vs. Union of India), in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible but positively within a period of six months from the date of filing a certified copy of this order before the said respondent.  

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

Dt/-5.5.2006

Ru/w.p.24933.06


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.