Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

OM PRAKASH versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Om Prakash v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 26697 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 10518 (7 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 45

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26697 of 2007

Om Prakash

Versus

State of U.P.

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.

Petitioner has approached this Court for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to demolish the shop of  petitioner and not to interfere in his peaceful possession over the shop in question situated at Delhi Road, near Indian Cold Storage, Hapur, District Ghaziabad.

Petitioner has given details of the  litigation inter se petitioner and respondent No. 7, wherein orders have been passed in favour of petitioner. Petitioner submits that in spite of the fact that he succeeded from court below, on 03.06.2007 an attempt has been made by State-respondents to demolish the shop in question. It has been contended by the petitioner that none of the respondent-authorities has issued any show cause notice or has given information to the petitioner with regard to demolition of shop, nor opportunity of hearing has been provided  before taking such coercive measures against petitioner. In this background, it has been sought to be contended that respondents are not legally authorised to demolish the shop in question. The statements of fact which have been mentioned are vague and evasive. As far as State Authorities are concerned, it is expected from them that their action  should always be subscribed and backed by law. Before rushing to this Court, at no point of time, petitioner ever approached the authority concerned for redressal of his grievances and unnecessarily motives have been imputed to the State Authorities. In case, petitioner has any grievance, then he can always move the State authorities. Relief claimed cannot be accorded by this Court.

Consequently, writ petition is dismissed.

07.06.2007

SRY.                      


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.