Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RUSTOM KHUSHRO GHANDHI & OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' SECY. AVAS SECRETARIAT & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Rustom Khushro Ghandhi & Others v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. Avas Secretariat & Others - WRIT - C No. 20379 of 2003 [2005] RD-AH 2081 (24 August 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

COURT NO. 34

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 20379 OF 2003

Rustom Khusro Sapurji Ghandhi

and others ..........................................Petitioners.

versus

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

HON. DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

HON. SHISHIR KUMAR, J.

This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 15.11.2002 by which the application of the petitioners for renewing the lease of the Nazul Land which is in possession of the petitioners and for which a lease has been granted in favour of the petitioners has been rejected.

I have heard Sri Ravi Kant Learned Senior Advocate and Sri C.K. Rai, Standing Counsel for the respondents. A large number of issues have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. However, the petitioners had approached this Court earlier by filing Writ Petition No. 32950 of 1994 wherein the petition was allowed with the following directions:

"The facts of this case are covered by the judgment of this Court in P.D. Tandon Vs. State of U.P. 1987 ALR 92.

This petition is disposed of on the same terms and conditions as in the aforesaid decision. The petitioner's lease shall be renewed within a month in accordance with law."

Thus by allowing the earlier writ petition a direction had been issued to the respondents to grant renewal of the lease and no option had been given to the respondents to reject the application. The respondents had been asked only to perform the ministerial act; therefore, any order passed in contravention of this order is null and void whether this Court would have passed such an order is a debatable issue. However, the order has attained the finality and the issue cannot be reopened in these proceedings. In such a case if the judgment and order dated 25.5.1998 has not been complied with by the respondents, the appropriate remedy for the petitioners is to file an application for contempt of Court for not complying with the order of the Court.

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

24.8.2005

V.Sri/-


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.