Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

CHATTU LAL versus MANAGING DIRECTOR (P.C.D.F.) LTD. LUCKNOW AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Chattu Lal v. Managing Director (p.c.d.f.) Ltd. Lucknow And Others - WRIT - A No. 59893 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 2697 (12 September 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

Hon'ble Amitava Lala,J.

Hon'ble Praksh  Krishna,J.

Miss Sarita Jhingan,learned counsel appeared  for the petitioner and Mr. G.D.Misra, learned counsel appeared for the respondents.

An order has been passed by the authority concerned on 25.7.2005 in a disciplinary proceeding of the petitioner only by making censure entry.  The writ petition has been filed on 6.9.2005 beyond the prescribed period for appeal and without exhausting the remedy as prescribed under Regulation 86 of U.P. Cooperative Socities Employees Service Regulation 1975.  Learned counsel for the petitioner cited two cases reported in AIR 1951 (All.) 257         ( Moti Lal & Ors. Vs State of   U.P. ) and 2001 (3) UPLBEC 2571 ( Pradeep Kumar Singh vs State of Sugar Corporation) to satisfy the court that in spite of alternative remedy the petitioner can file a writ petition for the purpose of appropriate relief.  We found in both the judgments that in an exceptional circumstance that can be done and we are aware of the same.  But the present case is not an exceptional circumstance where the provision of appeal will be ignored, therefore, appeal is the alternative remedy. At the time of making appeal if the petitioner found difficulty because of expiry of the period, he can make an application before such authority to exclude the period from the date of order and the date of receiving certified copy of the judgment ready for delivery by the department.

Thus, the writ petition stands dismissed.  No order is passed as to costs.

Dated 12.9.2005

PKB

WP59893-05


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.