Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ASHOK KUMAR GEDA & ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P.& OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ashok Kumar Geda & Another v. State Of U.P.& Others - WRIT - C No. 35834 of 1996 [2005] RD-AH 598 (2 March 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. 3

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35834 of 1996.

Ashok Kumar Geda and another.............................. Petitioners.

Versus

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

--------

     PRESENT:

    (Hon'ble Justice Amitava Lala and Hon'ble Justice Sanjay Misra)

Appearance:

For the Petitioners : Sri Govind Krishna.

For the Respondents : S.C.

Sri D.V. Jaiswal.

---------------

Amitava Lala, J.-- From the final order of this Court passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30024 of 1995 an application was made by the writ petitioner for exempting him from the applicability of Rule-18 of the Uttar Pradesh Cinematograph Rules, 1951. The same was refused by the authority, from which an appeal was preferred and the same was rejected not being maintainable. As a result whereof the petitioner was compelled to file this writ petition. During the course of hearing the intervener i.e. a co-sharer of the property contended that the order was rightly passed and the building being dilapidated can not be converted to any purpose. We have also come to know that there is a suit pending in between the petitioner and intervener in a civil court. The petitioner is presently a tenant, but made an agreement for sale with the co-sharer or co-sharers of the property. On the other hand, the intervener is also a co-sharer. The intervener has also sold a portion of the property being small or big for the purpose of carrying on business. In view of the fact and also the established fact that from the year 1990 there is no cinematography business in the building, why the exemption of the petitioner will not be allowed under Rule-18 of the aforesaid Rules is unknown to this Court. It might have the discretion of the authority concerned but such discretion will be backed by cogent reasons. Cogent reasons do not necessarily mean elaborated discussion of fact but the reasons why the exemption will not be allowed to the petitioner. We are not in a very happy position, therefore, we direct the authority concerned to consider the subject matter once again giving fullest opportunity of hearing and by passing a reasoned order thereon within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order in the light of the judgment and order passed by this Court. As a corollary the impugned order stands quashed. However, passing of this order will no way affect the right, title and interest of the parties in the suit.

Thus, the writ petition stands disposed of.

No order is passed as to cost.

(Justice Amitava Lala)

     I agree.

(Justice Sanjay Misra)

Dt./- 02.03.2005.

SKT/-    


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.