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


Chokhey Singh & Another v. State Of U.P. & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 852 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 16422 (8 October 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).


CJ's Court

Special Appeal (Defective) No.852 of 2007

1.Chokhey Singh, S/o Shri Khacher Singh, R/o Village-Sultanpur, Post Office-Pora, District Hathras.

2.Bhuray Lal, S/o Ahabaran Singh, R/o Village- Ashadpur, Post Office-Bhisi Mirzapur District Hathras. ......Appellants


State of U.P. & Others ......Respondents

Present: Sri Y.D. Sharma, for the appellants.

Sri R.K. Tiwari, Standing Counsel, for the respondents.

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

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.

Date: 8th October, 2007.

Oral Judgement (Per: H.L. Gokhale, CJ.)

1. Heard Mr. Y.D. Sharma, in support of this appeal.

2. The appellants had filed a writ petition way back in the year 1995. They were Tubewell Operators. They sought regularization. The learned Single Judge of this Court passed an order on 8.7.1997, directing the authorities of the State Government to consider their representation. The representation was to be decided within eight weeks. In the meanwhile, the orders of their termination were suspended. This order was passed on 8.7.1997. There were four petitioners in that matter. Two of them were regularised within this period. The other two were not. Both those petitioners applied for modification of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge rejected that modification application by his order passed on 28.7.2000. Six years thereafter another review application has been filed, which has led to the impugned order. The learned Single Judge has rejected that application by observing that the application for clarification with the same prayer has already been rejected by the same Judge who had passed the Judgement and Order dated 8.7.1997, and the subsequent application for the same prayer made in a different manner cannot be allowed.

3. We do not find any error in the order. The appeal is dismissed.


RKK/- (Chief Justice)

(Anjani Kumar, J.)


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.