Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHANKH LAL MANJHI versus STATE OF U.P.& OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Shankh Lal Manjhi v. State Of U.P.& Others - WRIT - C No. 19067 of 1996 [2004] RD-AH 1021 (4 October 2004)

 

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

WP No. 19067 of 1996

Hon'ble Yatindra Singh, J

Hon'ble VS Bajpai, J

Sri Sankh Lal Manjhi claims himself to be a schedule caste. In this connection some orders have been passed. He has filed the present writ petition for quashing the order dated 15.5.1996. In this case he obtained an interim order on 5.6.1996. It appears that the judgement in this writ petition  was reserved on 4.11.1996 and thereafter the  record of the case was misplaced. Some persons filed application for the vacation of the interim orders and on their  application inquiry was conducted and now a departmental inquiry is being conducted against the persons found prima facie guilty. The record however, is not available. In view of this, it is appropriate that the record should be reconstructed.  

       Counsel for the petitioner has produced a photostat copy of the certified copy of the order dated 5.6.1996 certifying that it is a true copy of the order passed by this court on 5.6.1996. Let it be taken on record.  The petitioner may filed two copies of writ petition within a week.  The standing counsel states that a counter affidavit has already been filed. They may also serve copy of counter affidavit alongwith annexures on the counsel for petitioner and may file two copies of the counter affidavits filed by them within a week.

Ram Lakhan, Peer Ali and Lalmani Prasad have also filed  applications for impleadment. Ram Lakhan is from public who was interested in contesting election from the place from where the petitioner has won the election;  Peer Ali is alleged to be the person on whose complaint inquiry against the petitioner was started; and  Lalmani Prasad is sitting MP from the place from where the petitioner has obtained the scheduled caste certificate. These persons can not be impleaded in the writ petition, however, they are permitted to oppose the writ petitioner under chapter 22 rule 5-A of the Allahabad High Court Rules.

     Peer Ali and Lalmani Prasad have filed counter affidavits to the writ petition, the petitioner may file rejoinder affidavit by the next date to the counter affidavits filed by the State of UP, Peer Ali and Lalmani Prasad.  There is no necessity to pass any order at this stage on the stay vacation applications.

    On the request of counsel for the petitioner list this petition on 12th October 2004 alongwith writ petition no. 36015 of 1992 decided on 8.2.1999 and writ petition no. 12915 of 1990 decided on 16.9.1998.

Dated: 4.10.2004

BBL


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.