Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SADHU SARAN LAL versus SAHAYAK SHIKSHA NIDESHAK BASIC BASTI MANDAL GORAKHPUR & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sadhu Saran Lal v. Sahayak Shiksha Nideshak Basic Basti Mandal Gorakhpur & Ors. - WRIT - C No. - 42297 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 15162 (7 September 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 AT ALLAHABAD

"C.J. Court"

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 42297 OF 2007

Sadhu Saram Lal, Son of Late Sri Babu Ram Lal,

Resident of Village Majhauwa Khajuri, Post Office

Majhauwa Khajuri, District Basti, at present

residing at New Colony, Mohalla Bairihwa, Post

Office Gandhi Nagar, Basti.

............ Petitioner

Versus

1. Sahayak Shiksha Nideshak jBasic Basti Mandal Gorakhpur.

2. Sachiv, Basic Shiksha, Uttar Pradesh Shashan Sachivalaya,

Lucnow.

3. Shiksha Nideshak Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow

4. Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari Basti.

5. Lekhadhikari Office of Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Basti

6. Raghunandan Lal Son of Rudra Narain Lal, Manager,

Kisan Purve Madhyamik Vidyalaya Vikas Chhetra -

Saltauwa, Tahsil Bhanpur, District Basti.

7. Kisan Purve Madhyamik Vidyalaya Majhauwa Khajuri,

Vikas Chhetra Saltauwa, Tehsil Bhanpur, District

Basti through its Manager.

............... Respondents.

*****************

Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Govind Saran

Counsel for the Respondents : Standing Counsel for the State.

Hon'ble H.L. Gokhale, C.J.

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.

Date : September 7, 2007

Oral Judgement (Per : H.L. Gokhale, C.J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The writ petition is filed with the prayer that respondent no.7, Educational Institution, should not be given grant-in-aid. The petitioner claims to be a citizen, resident of the village and is a retired person.

3. The Educational Authorities will always look if there is any complaint. It is not for the High Court to look into all these matters.

4. The writ petition is dismissed.

Date : 7.9.2007.

mhu

(Chief Justice)

(Anjani Kumar, 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.