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


Atal Singh Malik & Another v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secry, Finance U.P. Lko. & Others - WRIT - C No. 14936 of 2004 [2005] RD-AH 5193 (7 November 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.38

Civil Misc.Writ Petition No. 14936 of 2004

Atal Singh Malik and another    vs.     State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.

The son of the petitioners died in a road accident on 25.2.2000. The petitioners thereafter filed a claim petition under the Workmen Compensation Act before the Respondent no. 2. The said claim petition was dismissed in default on 16.6.2003. The restoration application was also dismissed by the Respondent no.2 vide order dated 8.3.2004. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 16.6.2003 and 8.3.2004 the petitioners have filed this writ petition.

I have heard Sri A.P.Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Pankaj Rai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent no.4 and have perused the record.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and keeping in view the fact that the only son of the petitioners died in an accident and the petitioners are residents of Muzaffarnagar whereas the case is pending at Saharanpur, the order dismissing the claim petition in default as well as the order rejecting the restoration application do not appear to be justified. The explanation of the petitioners for not having appeared on the dates fixed appears to be justified and the orders dated 16.6.2003 and 8.3.2004 are liable to be recalled and the matter should be decided by the Respondent no. 2 on merits.

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the orders dated 16.6.2003 and 8.3.2004 are hereby set aside. The claim petition is restored to its original number. However, it is made clear that the Respondent no.2 shall decide the claim petition expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order before him without giving unnecessary adjournment to either party. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that his clients shall not seek any adjournment before the Respondent no. 2 and shall adduce evidence on the next date.

Dt/- November 7, 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.