Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAGHUVANSH NATH DUBEY versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Raghuvansh Nath Dubey v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 29377 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 11381 (6 July 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

Chief Justice's Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

ORIGINAL  JURISDICTION

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. (PIL) 29377 of 2007

1.        Raghuvansh Nath Dubey s/o Shri Uma Nath Dubey

R/o Purani Bazar, Balrampur, District Balrampur.

versus

1. State of U.P. through Secretary (Public Works Division),

U.P. Shashan Lucknow.

2. Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur.

3. District Magistrate, Farrukhabad.

4. Chief Engineer, Kanpur Circle, Public Works Division,

Kanpur.

5. Executive Engineer, Provincial Division,

Public Works Division, Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad.

****

Counsel for the Petitioner:    Mr. Puneet Kumar Gupta

Counsel for the respondents:  Mr. M.C. Chaturvedi Chief Standing    Counsel

 

****

CORAM: Hon'ble H.L.Gokhale,CJ

Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal,J

Dated: July 6, 2007

ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per: H.L. Gokhale,CJ

1.Heard Mr. Puneet Kumar Gupta, learned counsel in support of this petition. Mr. M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Chief Standing Counsel appears for the State of U.P. and its officers.

2. The petitioner is a successful bidder in the auction for collection of the toll charges on one bridge in district Farrukhabad. Notice for the auction was given by the Chief Engineer of the U.P. Public Works Department, Kanpur on 5.4.2007. Notice itself states that the auction was to be held on 4.5.2007. Notice further states that the bid is to be given on an annual basis.

3. The submission of the petitioner's counsel is that inasmuch as the bid was finalised on 9.5.2007 and he took charge on 10.5.2007, he should be given reduction for the amount, which he could not collect from 5.4.2007 to 10.5.2007 on pro rata  basis. He had made a representation to the authority concerned on 18.5.2007.

4. Mr. Chaturvedi, learned Chief Standing Counsel opposes this submission and submits that in the event, such a plea is accepted, the other bidders will make a grievance. In any case, he has no objection if the representation made by the petitioner is decided by the authority concerned.

5. We quite see the merit of the submission of Mr. Chaturvedi. In our view, the proper course will be that the petitioner's representation will be looked into by the authority concerned and the same will be decided within about six weeks from today.  

6.. Petition is disposed of.

Date:6.7.2007

RK/ (Chief Justice)

         (R.K. Agrawal,J)


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.