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


Ravi Prakash Agarwal v. Union Of India & Others - WRIT - C No. 26572 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 10461 (6 June 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).



Sri Vinod Kumar Shukla, Advocate, appearing for the respondents filed a parcha today.

The petitioner has approached this Court for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to transfer the review application filed by the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 against the mutation order dated 7.7.2003 passed by the Cantonment Board, Kanpur Nagar.

It has been submitted by the petitioner that the property known as Garden No.2 bearing Survey No.630/435. It is an old grant land.  Half portion of the Survey No.630/425 is recorded in the name of Smt. Kamla Wati and half in the name of Sri Triveni Sahai.  The respondent Nos.5 and 6 claiming themselves to be grandson and daughter of Smt. Kamla Wati, filed a joint application on 15.4.2002 for effecting mutation in their favour of one fourth portion of respondent No.2.  The petitioner has also applied for the same.  By order dated 7.7.2003, the application filed by the  respondent Nos.5 and 6 as well as the petitioner has been rejected. In the meantime, the petitioner aggrieved by the aforesaid order has filed an appeal. The respondent Nos. 5 and 6 filed a writ petition before this Court as Writ Petition No.46885 of 2003 (Smt. Kusum Lata Agarwala and another Vs. Cantonment Board and others ). The same was dismissed as withdrawn.  Now the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 filed a review petition which is still pending.

The contention of the petitioner is that the authority before whom the application is pending has got no power to review but it appears that in collusion with respondent Nos.5 and 6, he has entertained the review application and bent upon to pass order.  The petitioner has requested the authority to transfer the said case to any other competent authority to decide the same. To that effect the petitioner has submitted a representation before the respondent No.4 but the no order have been passed.

After hearing counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it appears that the application filed by the petitioner has not yet been considered. If there is an apprehension in the mind of any one of the party that he will not get justice from any particular court or authority and if this apprehension is brought to the notice of that judicial officer or authority then it will be appropriate for that authority to transfer the case to any other person.

In such circumstances, the present writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to the respondent No.3 to pass appropriate orders  on the representation filed by the petitioner dated 31.5.2006 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition.  The respondent No.3 will pass a detailed and reasoned order according to law preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order.

With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.

No order as to costs.  



W.P.No.   26572/2007


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.