Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SANGRAM versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sangram v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 61704 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 3096 (19 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

Court No.37

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 61704 of  2005

Sangram  v. State of U.P. and others.

Hon'ble R.K.Agrawal, J.

By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record of the case and quashing the order dated 4th August, 2005 passed by the Commissioner, Vindhyachal Division, Mirzapur filed as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition allowing the revision filed by the respondent No.4 and had cancelled the proposal for allotment of fair price shop in favour of the petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.N.Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 and the learned Standing Counsel who represents respondents no.1 to3.

In paragraph 15 and 16 of the writ petition, it has been stated that even though the petitioner was one of the party in the revision before the Commissioner yet neither any notice was served upon him nor any opportunity of hearing was given to him, therefore, the impugned order had been passed in gross violation of principles of equity, fair play and natural justice. Sri M.N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 does not dispute the position that the notice was not issued to the petitioner by the Commissioner before deciding the matter.

In this of the view of the matter, the impugned order dated 4th August, 2005 cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside.  The Commissioner, Vindhyachal Division, Mirzapur is directed to decide the afresh the revision in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as also to the respondent No.4 within one month from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him.

19.9.2005

mt


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.