Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Rajendra Prasad Saxena v. The State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 23397 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 10064 (24 May 2007)


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).


Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.

  Supplementary  affidavit  filed  today  is  taken on record.

Heard counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel. By consent of parties this writ petition is being finally disposed of.

By this writ petition the petitioner  has prayed for quashing the impugned suspension order  dated 4.9.2001. The petitioner  was suspended by the order dated 4.9.2001 on account registration of  a criminal case against the petitioner. The petitioner has earlier filed writ petition No. 39209 of 2004 challenging the suspension order  which was dismissed by order dated 23.9.2004 by following order :-

" After the matter had been heard, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not want to press this petition at this stage. Rejected."


Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition on fresh cause of action which accrued  on account of revocation of suspension of one Ahmad Anis  who was also junior clerk against whom criminal  case was registered.  Petitioner submits that when he came to know about the revocation of suspension  he  filed a representation in 2005.  Along with supplementary affidavit the petitioner has also brought on record another application given on 21.5.2007 after filing of the writ petition.

In above view there is no error in the suspension order.  However, the petitioner's application for revocation of suspension submitted to the Secretary, Board of High School & Intermediate Education needs to be considered. It is thus observed that the application of the petitioner dated 21.5.2007 filed as Annexure-3 to the supplementary affidavit  may be considered and disposed of.  It is made clear that this Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and it is for the authority concerned  to consider all  aspect of the matter and take appropriate decision in accordance with law.

With the above observations the writ petition is disposed of.




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


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 |

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