Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. MANJU TRIPATHI & ANOTHER versus VICE CHAIRMAN ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Manju Tripathi & Another v. Vice Chairman Allahabad Development Authority & Ors. - WRIT - C No. 22452 of 2003 [2005] RD-AH 623 (3 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

Hon'ble Amitava Lala,J

Hon'ble Sanjay Misra,J.

The petitioners are aggrieved by not getting allotment of MIG plot Nos. 122 and 123 Naini Awasiya Yojana. From the prescribed rules, we find that either by way of lottery or by way of "first come first serve policy" will have to be adopted.  The petitioners' case is pending for quite some time and according to them they made these applications at first as under Annexure Nos. 3 & 4.  However, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that it has to be distributed by way of lottery, to which the petitioners objected by saying that the lottery system was not applicable when the application was made.  We are of the view that such dispute can not be resolved unless  and until it has been taken into account by appropriate authority, the respondent no.1 herein, to pass a reasoned order upon giving fullest opportunity of hearing.  At the time of consideration the authority concerned first decide that the petitioners' case comes under which category and then to decide expeditiously if possible not beyond the period of two months from the date of communication of this order. At the time of consideration it is also to be clarified by the  authority concerned to the petitioners  whether any of the plot was allotted to the third party and what way the same has been allotted in respect of the petitioners grievance long back. With these observations this writ petition stands disposed of.   No order is passed as to cost.

Dated 3.3.2005

PKB

WP22452/03


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.