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


Raj Sajiwan v. Commissioner Allahabad Division & Others - WRIT - C No. 15328 of 2003 [2005] RD-AH 3699 (29 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).


Court No. 4

Civil Misc. Recall Application No.93016 of 2005


Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15328 Of 2003.

Ram Sajiwan


Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad and others


Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.

By this writ petition the petitioner had prayed for the following relief:-

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 3.2.03 and 26.12.02 (Annexures 5 and 3 to the writ petition) passed by respondent nos.1 and 2 respectively;

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.3 not to deposit the Fire Arms i.e. N.P. Bore Rifle No.319168 and D.B.B.L. Gun in the Police Malkhana concerned;

(iii) issue any other suitable writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."

The petitioner filed an application no.185545 of 2003 with the prayer that the writ petition may be dismissed as not pressed. Accordingly by order dated 29th October 2003 this Court dismissed the writ petition as not pressed. Now this Application No.93016 of 2005 has been filed on 25th April 2005 with the following prayer:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to recall the order dated 29.10.2003 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. Kumar, and the aforesaid writ petition No.15328 of 2003 may be heard on merits to its original number to meet the ends of justice."

Admittedly this application has been filed beyond the time prescribed for filing an application for recall of an order and there is no prayer nor any application for condonation of delay in filing the present application for recall of order dated 29th October 2003. In these circumstances this application deserves to be rejected as barred by time.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this application has been filed in pursuance to the observations made by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J. in Writ Petition No.18767 of 2005. A copy of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J. is annexed with this application. In the said judgment the Hon'ble Judge has been pleased to observe as under:-

"Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, this order shall not prejudice the rights of the petitioner to seek such remedy as may be available under law against the order of this Court dated 29th October, 2003, dismissing the writ petition as withdrawn."

Now according to learned counsel for the applicant this application has been filed pursuance to the aforesaid observation dated 18th March 2005 referred to above. For recall of the order there is a time limit prescribed i.e. 30 days or it should be filed along with a prayer or an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay.

As already held neither any prayer is made nor any application is filed for condonation of delay. This application is rejected as barred by time.

Dt: 29.9.2005.



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.