Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NARENDRA PRAKASH SHARMA versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Narendra Prakash Sharma v. State Of U.P. & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. 393 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 8290 (2 May 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.32

Special Appeal No 393 of 2007

Narendra Prakash Sharma .....Appellant

Versus.

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

*****

Hon'ble S. Rafat Alam, J.

Hon'ble Rakesh Sharma, J.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned standing counsel for respondents no.1 and Sri Rajiv Joshi, learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 3 and also  perused the record.

It is vehemently contended that the appellant did disclose about the filing of the earlier writ petition in para-9 of the writ petition. It is also submitted that the petitioner-appellant also disclosed in para-10 of the writ petition about the order passed in that writ petition, a copy whereof was enclosed as Anneure-3 to the writ petition. It is, therefore, submitted that it is not a case where the appellant deliberately suppressed the facts regarding filing of the earlier writ petition. It is stated by Sri Y.K.Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant that pursuant to the impugned order of transfer, the appellant has already submitted his joining at the transferred place.

Having considered the submissions, we are of the view that the order dated 10.11.2006, impugned in the writ petition, being the order of transfer, which is an incidence of service, has rightly not been interfered with by the Hon'ble Single Judge.  However, in view of the explanation given in the affidavit filed in support of the stay application the imposition of cost of Rs.10,000/- is excessive. We, therefore, modify the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge by reducing the amount of cost from Rs. 10,000/-  to Rs. 100/-.

With the aforesaid modification, the special appeal stands dismissed.

Dated: 2.5.2007

SKM


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.