Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Munazir & Others v. State Of U.P. & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 685 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 1428 (27 May 2005)


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).


Court No. 32

Special Appeal No. 685 of 2005

Munazir and others         v.           State of U.P. & others


Hon.S.Rafat Alam J.

Hon. Vikram Nath J.

This appeal arises against the order of learned single Judge dated 16.5.2005 in Writ Petition No. 38187 of 2005.

We have heard Sri Raj Kumar Khanna learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ran Vijai Singh learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

It appears that the petitioner/appellants have made an application before the Nirvachak Registry Karan Adhikari/ Tahsildar, Tahsil Moradabad, District Moradabad respondent no.3 for adding their names in the voter list. When the same was not decided, they represented to the District Magistrate, Moradabad (respondent 2). However when no response was received from respondent 2 also, they approached this Court by filing aforesaid writ petition which was dismissed by learned single Judge on the ground that the petitioner appellant has a remedy of filing an appeal under Rule 21 A (5) of U.P. Panchayat Raj (Registration of Electors) Rules, 1994. It is contended that in fact there was no occasion for the appellant to prefer an appeal because no final decision has been taken either by the respondent no.3 or by respondent no.2 nor their requests were refused for adding  their names in the voter list.

Sri Ran Vijai Singh learned Standing Counsel fairly submitted that if the appellant has applied for adding their names in the voter list within time schedule as notified by State Government, the same would be disposed off in accordance with law.

We therefore, modify the order of learned single Judge to the extent that the representation of the appellant dated 28.4.2005 lying before the respondent no.2 shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously within six weeks, provided the same was filed within the time as notified by the State Government.

This appeal and the writ petition are accordingly disposed off in terms of this order

It is made clear that our order may not be considered so as to express any opinion on the merit of the claim of the petitioner regarding recording of the names in the voter list and the decision may be taken by the concerned authority strictly in accordance with law.




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


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 |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.