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


Shrawan Kumar Maddeshiya v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. - 44316 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 15576 (14 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).


Court No. 10

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44316 of 2007

Shrawan Kumar Maddeshiya vs. State of U.P. & others.

Hon'ble Yatindra Singh,J.

Hon'ble Vijay Kumar Verma,J.

1. This is a writ petition against the recovery of Mandi Shulk.

2. We have heard counsel for the petitioner, Sri Satish Mandhyan, counsel for respondent no. 4 and standing counsel for the state .

3. The counsel for the petitioner has made statement at the bar that this is the first writ petition against the recovery and this fact has also been stated in the writ petition. According to the petitioner he could not pay the Mandi Shulk due to the circumstances beyond his control. In view of this, it would be appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with following directions.

The petitioner may deposit the entire arrears in four instalments. In calculating the arrears the amount (if any) already paid will be adjusted.

The first instalment may be deposited by the end of September 2007 and subsequent instalments may be deposited after the interval of every three months. These deposits may be made before respondent no. 4. In case instalments are deposited before respondent No. 4 then the recovery charges will not be recovered from the petitioner.

During this period, the recovery proceedings will be kept in abeyance. In case the petitioner default in depositing the instalments within the above-stipulated time, it will open to the respondents to start recovery proceedings again.

The petitioner may file application for the accounts along with duly stamped self-addressed envelope. In case any such application is filed, the same will be given to the petitioner by respondent No. 4 after deposit of first instalment.

This order will not affect any auction already held. In that event the petitioner may take appropriate legal proceedings to set aside the auction under UPZA & LR Act and Rules, 1952 or file a suit in accordance with law.

It is clarified that this order will not be operative in case the petitioner has filed any other earlier writ petition against the recovery.

4. With these directions the writ petition is disposed of.

Dated: 14.09.2007.



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.