Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAJENDRA PRATAP SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Rajendra Pratap Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 22432 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 9162 (14 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

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.

Heard counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner is reported to be guilty of laches for a period of 5 years and 317 days by Stamp Reporter, inasmuch the petitioner has challenged the circular dated 5.3.2001, Annexure-6 to the writ petition and the present petition was presented for report before the Stamp Reporter on 16.4.2007 and has been filed on 8.5.2007. The petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit, paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of which are reproduced below :

"6. That the representation dated 15.5.2002 was not considered by the respondent No. 2, thereafter the petitioner before this Hon'ble Court in the month of August 2002 and engaged Mr. Shaym Upadhyaya Advocate Chamber No. 9 for filing the writ petition before this Hon'ble Court and despoited requisite fee and expenses to Mr. Shyam Upadhyaya for filing the above noted writ petition.  

7. That the petitioner consulted to Mr. Shyam Upadhyaya and Mr. Shyam Upadhyaya said that the writ petition has been filed but it is matter of surprise to the petitioner before this Hon'ble Court to know the position of his case in the month of January 2006 but it came in the knowledge of petitioner that the writ petition has not  been filed by Mr. Shyam Upadhyaya.

8. That thereafter the petitioner take his filed from the office of Shyam Upadhyaya and engaged the present Counsel Mr. Girish Kumar Singh for filing the above noted writ petition."

The petitioner has specifically not stated anything as to what action he has taken against Sri Shyam Upadhyaya, who has not filed the writ petition despite instruction of the petitioner. In these circumstances, the explanation furnished by the petitioner for laches cannot be accepted.

This writ petition, therefore, is dismissed on the ground of laches. There is another reason for not entertaining the writ petition that the petitioner has already received the retiral benefits under the amended rules, long back.

Dated. 14.5.2007

PS-22432/07


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.