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


Nirmala Devi v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. - 57954 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 18405 (28 November 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).



Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 57954 of 2007

Nirmala Devi ......................................................................... Petitioner


State of Uttar Pradesh & others ............................... Respondents


Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.

Heard counsel for the petitioner.

By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 9.12.2005 passed by the Director rejecting the representation of the petitioner. The petitioner has applied for Special B.T.C. Training Course 2004. The petitioner was not selected. He filed writ petition No. 11012 of 2005 which was disposed of by this Court on 28.2.2005 directing the Director to decide the representation. The Director by the impugned order has rejected the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner has now come up challenging the order and has filed this writ petition on 22.11.2007 i.e. after more than one and half years of passing the order. Learned counsel for the petitioner for explaining the delay in filing the writ petition stated that the relevant information was not available to the petitioner for filing the writ petition and he applied for relevant information on 11.9.2006 and thereafter on 15.3.2007 and the petitioner could get the information only when certain information was made available to one Sant Ram vide letter dated 6.2.2007. The petitioner was an applicant for Special B.T.C. Training Course-2004. The Director by the impugned order dated 9.12.2005 has rejected the representation of the petitioner after considering the petitioner's claim. The petitioner's claim having been rejected it was open for the petitioner to immediately challenge the order if she so aggrieved, even the application which is claimed to have been filed by the petitioner for certain information was on 13.9.2006 i.e. more than nine months of the passing of the order. There is no satisfactory explanation as to why the writ petition was not filed immediately when the claim was rejected specially when the case was for being sent for Special B.T.C. Training Course-2004 which is a fixed course and the said training had started and completed long ago.

In view of the aforesaid this writ petition cannot be entertained being barred by latches and is accordingly dismissed.




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.