Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DAYANAND SINGH & ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Dayanand Singh & Another v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 71064 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 448 (9 January 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

Court No. 10

    Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 71064 of 2006

Dayanand Singh and another  . . . . . . . .  . . . . . .  . . . . . . Petitioners.

                                    Versus

State of U.P. and others . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . ..Respondents.

                                         -a---

Hon'ble A.K. Yog,J.

Hon'ble R.K.Rastogi,J.

By means of this writ petition,  petitioners have challenged  the impugned order dated 16.11.2006 ( Annexure-2 to the writ petition ) passed by respondent no.3 reserving sale center Patai Khadar - B for Chandpur Sugar Mill.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned  Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 to 4 as well as Sri S.D.Singh appearing for respondent no. 5, who has filed his Vakalatnama today in Court.a

According to Sri S.D.Singh,  against the same order  an appeal has been preferred  by the aggrieved party, namely, Kisan Sahakari Sugar Mill Ltd. Gajaraula and it is to be decided by  the Special Secretary, Cane Development, Government of U.P. Lucknow. It is submitted that the aforesaid apapeal filed by the aggrieved party before the Special Secretary is pending  for a couple of months.

We do not enter into this dispute. In case the petitioner  is aggrieved, he may approach the said authority for deciding the appeal expeditiously. It is made clear that our order does not create any locus standi to the petitioner  which is not contemplated  in law.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed .

No order as to costs.

Dated: 9.1.2007

RPP.                                                                      


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.