Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SUBHASH CHAND JAISWAL & OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Subhash Chand Jaiswal & Others v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 26803 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 10569 (8 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

Hon.Shishir Kumar, J.

The petitioners have approached this Court for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents that in the year 2002, on the basis of highest bid, the petitioners were granted thekha to operate the ferry ghats.  

It appears that the respondent No.5 was not satisfied with the order passed by the authority, therefore, he filed a Writ Petition before this Court as Writ Petition No.50783 of 2002.  The interim order was granted and subsequently the respondent No.5 made an application for withdrawal of the writ petition and the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the petitioner were granted contract on the basis of highest bid and a agreement was executed in favour of the petitioners  but due to the interim order passed by this Court the petitioners were not permitted to operate the thekha, as such, the petitioners are entitled to continue the theka for a period for which the petitioners were not permitted to operate the ghats.  The reliance has been placed upon  a judgment of the Apex Court in Beg Raj Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2003(1) SCC page 726.  In support of the aforesaid judgment the learned counsel for the petitioners submit that in the Beg Raj case also the Apex Court has held that whether a person concerned was wrongfully disallowed to operate the theka or mining lease for full period but the lease remain inoperative and no third party  right is created then the person concerned be allowed to operate the thekha for the full period subject to adjustment for the period for which he has already operated.

In view of the aforesaid fact, the learned counsel for the petitioners submit that they are entitled to continue for a period for which the interim order was operating and the writ petition was pending before this Court.

I have heard Sri J.H.Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case as narrated above, the petitioners were not permitted to operate the thekha only on the ground that the respondent No.5 filed a writ petition before this court and an interim order was operating and subsequently the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.  As the contract was finalized in favour of the petitioners, therefore, they have a right to claim that they may be permitted to continue for a period for which they were not permitted to continue the contract.

This is a question to be decided by the authority, therefore,  it is provided that in case the petitioners submit a detailed and comprehensive representation annexing the copy of the writ petition before the respondent No.2 within a period of three weeks, the respondent No.2 is directed to consider the claim of the petitioners taking into facts and circumstances that due to the interim order by this court and due to the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioners were not permitted to operate the thekha.  There was no fault on the part of the petitioners.  The respondent No.2 will also take into consideration the Beg Raj's case  mentioned above, while considering the case of the petitioners and will pass a detailed and reasoned order according to law after affording an opportunity to the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of filing of the certified copy of the order.

With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.

No order as to costs.      

8.6.2007

SKD

W.P. No.26803  of 2007


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.