Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HARI SHANKER GUPTA versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Hari Shanker Gupta v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 473 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 1753 (5 February 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. Pankaj Mithal,J

Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

The applicant has alleged that the opposite party is flouting the order of this Court dated 8.2.2006 passed in writ petition No. 7934 of 2006 Subhash Kumar Vs. State of U.P., and others. By the said order   the High Court has directed the District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar to proceed with the disposal of the election petition expeditiously without granting undue long adjournments to the returned candidate. Relevant portion of the order dated 8.2.2006 is quoted below:-

"Considering this submission, we direct the District Judge Gautam Budh Nagar to proceed with the disposal of the election petition, unless there is some legal impediment, as expeditiously as possible  without granting undue or unduly long adjournments to the returned candidate, who might be interested in applying the dilatory tactics.

Writ petition is disposed of."

      I have perused the order sheet of the election petition No. 1 of 2005. The order sheet indicates that in the said election petition dates in quick succession are being fixed by the Presiding Officer. After the above directions of the High Court even issues have been framed and the statements of the witnesses are being recorded. Only once adjournment was allowed on payment of cost of Rs. 100/- and on one occasion the Presiding Officer himself was on leave.  Normally, on every other date statements of the witnesses have been recorded.

In view of the above, I do not find that any deliberate delay is being caused in the disposal of the election petition. Thus there is no  willful defiance of the order of this Court. The application therefore lacks merit and is  dismissed. However opposite party may ensure more stricter compliance of the order of this Court dated 8.2.2006 and proceed with the disposal of the election petition more expeditiously.

Application is dismissed with the above observation.

5.2.2007

SKS(473-07)  


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.