Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JAGDISH CHANDRA AWASTHI versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' ITS SECRETARY COOPERATIVE AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Jagdish Chandra Awasthi v. State Of U.P. Thru' Its Secretary Cooperative And Others - WRIT - A No. 23155 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 9425 (17 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 Ashok Bhushan, J.

Sri S. N. Singh has put in appearance  on behalf of the respondents No.2,3 and 4.  Learned standing counsel appears for respondent no. 1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court vide earlier order  dated 5.4.2006 set aside the  earlier recovery order and remitted the matter for passing fresh order after taking into consideration the reply to show cause notice.  The petitioner thereafter submitted detailed reply. copy of which has been filed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition.  It is contended that  the petitioner was given hearing and although his submissions are noted, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-15 to the writ petition, but there is no consideration of the issues raised while passing the order dated 2.2.2007 directing for recovery of Rs.4,90,311.06.  Considering the submissions of the petitioner and after perusal of the order dated 2.2.2007 it appear that the issues raised have not been adverted to  or decided.  The petitioner has made out a prima facie case for grant of interim relief.

Sri S. N. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the contention of the counsel for the  petitioner were considered and he has referred to page 58 of the  order.  From a reading of page 58  makes it clear that the respondents have held that according to scheme the petitioner was liable to deposit the amount  as mentioned therein.  At page 61 of the writ petition the petitioner has given explanation giving specific  reasons for not recovering the said amount as 1 (Ka) (Kha) and 2 (Ka).  The said reasons have not been adverted to. Therefore, the submission of Sri S. N. Singh  that the reply was considered prima facie cannot be accepted.

Let a counter affidavit be filed within one week. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within one week thereafter.  List the writ petition for admission on 2.7.2007. The impugned order dated  2.2.2007 shall remain stayed till the next date of listing.        

D/-17.5.2007

SCS/23155


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.