Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ROOP RAM versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Roop Ram v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 1177 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 600 (10 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. 38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1177 of 2007

Roop Ram       Vs.     State of U.P.  and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.

Petitioner had  been performing and discharging duties as Lekhpal and he obtained training of Revenue Inspector. Petitioner has contended that he performed duties as Revenue Inspector at Madanpur, Tehsil Sadar, District Shahjahanpur  till 15.12.2006. Petitioner has contended that prior to it vide order dated 14.12.2006 passed by Additional District Magistrate (Administration), he was transferred from Madanpur, Tehsil Sadar to Khutrar, Tehsil Powyan. Petitioner has contended that on 17.12.2006 he joined at Khutrar, Tehsil Powyan as Revenue Inspector. Thereafter, he has been sent back to Tehsil Sadar through order dated 27.12.2006 passed by Additional District Magistrate (Administration).

Sri Anuj Bajpai, learned counsel for petitioner, contended that in the recent past petitioner had been transferred and three was no occasion or reason to have cancelled the said transfer order, as such impugned order being bad is liable to be quashed.

Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand contended that it was a case where placement/adjustment is within the district, which warrants no interference, as such writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

After respective arguments have been advanced, the factual position which emerges is to the effect that petitioner is permanent resident of Tehsil Powyan, and when this fact was brought to the notice of the authorities concerned, petitioner's placement in  Tehsil Powyan has been cancelled and he has been sent back to Tehsiil Sadar. Thus, the view which has been taken is correct one and reasons have been mentioned in the impugned decision, which are referable from the record and the facts and circumstances brought on record together with the fact that petitioner himself has described to be permanent resident of  Tehsil Powyan, as such there is no infirmity in the decision which has been taken.

Consequently, writ petition lacks substance and the same is dismissed.

10.01.2007

SRY


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.