Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAJ NATH YADAV & OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Raj Nath Yadav & Others v. State Of U.P. & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 443 of 2001 [2007] RD-AH 487 (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

Hon'ble Amitava Lala, J.

Hon'ble Sanjay Misra, J.

Let the supplementary affidavit filed today be kept with the record.

The order impugned hereunder is dated 06th February, 2001, under which the writ petition has been dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. Additional fact is that no one was present before the Court to represent the case when the matter was called out twice. The impugned orders under challenge in the writ petition  were dated 23rd June, 2000 and 24th June, 2000. The appeal was pending for quite some time. In the meantime another writ petition, being Writ Petition No. 6317 (SS) of 2004 (Virendra Kumar Pandey @ Birendra Vs. State of U.P. and others), was heard and allowed by another learned Single Judge on 26th July, 2006. There also both the impugned orders were under challenge, and the same were quashed upon hearing the parties on merits.

In view of such circumstances, unless and until we set aside the order impugned herein upon allowing the appeal, the grievance of the petitioners-appellants will not be subserved. Therefore, the appeal is allowed. The order impugned being dated 06th February, 2001 stands set aside. The matter is remanded back to the concerned learned Single Judge hearing the matter to hear out the submissions of the respective parties on the point of alternative remedy at first particularly in view of the aforementioned decision of another learned Single Judge dated 26th July, 2006, whereby the orders impugned have been quashed by the Court. However, we have not touched the merit of the case. The entire case is open for the learned Single Judge to hear out.        

However, no order is passed as to costs.

Dt./-09.01.2007.

SKT/(Spl.443-01).


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.