High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Bechan Prasad & Another v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 18225 of 2007  RD-AH 7602 (25 April 2007)
Court no. 29
Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 18225 Of 2007.
Bechan Prasad and another ... Petitioners.
State of U. P. and others. ... Respondents.
Hon'ble Dr. B. S. Chauhan, J.
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners seeks the following reliefs:-
a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to not make torture, humiliation and interfere in the peaceful lives of the petitioners being close relative of Bhola Prasad (petitioner of Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 195/2007, Bhola Prasad Versus State of U. P. and others).
b) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
c) Award costs.
We have heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Upadhayay, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are being harassed by the respondent no. 2 being a relative of Sri Bhola Prasad who has filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 195/2007, Bhola Prasad Versus State of U. P. and others in which respondent no. 2 was summoned by this Court. He submitted that on the behest of the respondent no. 2, respondent no. 3 had issued a notice dated 8.3.2007 asking the petitioners to give details of the construction work carried on during the period 2000-01 to 2005-06. He submitted that the report relating to the constructions work carried on by the petitioners, have already been submitted to the respondent no. 3.
The allegation made by the petitioners about the harassment by the respondent no. 2 made in the writ petition are vague. We do not see any reason why the respondent no. 2 may harass the petitioners merely because they are relative of Sri Bhola Prasad.
So for as the notice dated 8.3.2007 is concerned, by the said notice the details of the construction work carried on during the years 2000-01 to 2005-06 are demanded. Petitioners claimed that the details have already been furnished. In case, if the petitioners have furnished the details, respondent no. 3 may consider the same in reply to the notice dated 8.3.2007 and in case, if such details have not been furnished, the petitioners may furnish such details and thereafter, respondent no. 3 may proceed in the matter in accordance to law.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.