SUDEEPTA KUMAR PAL AND OTHERS versus GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Sudeepta Kumar Pal And Others v. Ghaziabad Development Authority And Others - WRIT - C No. 73543 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 6937 (5 December 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.34

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.73543 of 2005

Sudeepta Kumar Pal & Ors

Versus

Ghaziabad Development Authority & Ors

Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.

This petition has been filed by certain residents claiming the following reliefs:

(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to comply with the sanctioned lay out map in totality and further issue a writ of mandamus commending them not to utilize the space earmarked for parks for any other purposes; and

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 3 to strictly ensure the provision of electricity supply from the space reserved for it in the sanctioned lay out map and direct the respondent no.2 not to permit the installation of transformers, DG sets, Electricity Poles anywhere in the parks or in the middle of the road and to  install them only in the area earmarked for the same in the sanctioned lay out map.

We have heard Sri Amit Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri A.K. Misra for respondent no.1; Sri Kulshrestha for respondent no.2 and Sri W.H. Khan appearing for respondent no.3 and have examined the materials available on record.

Sri Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that respondent nos. 1 and 2 are installing the transformers and Diesel Generator Sets, Electric Poles in complete deviation of the sanctioned map.

Sri A.K. Misra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 and Shri Kulshreshtha appearing for the respondent no.2 have however stated that the installation is being done in accordance with the sanctioned plan.      

We, however, find from the records that the petitioners have already filed a detailed representation on 31/10/2005 before the Chairman of the Ghaziabad Development Authority, which is said to be pending.  

In view of the facts and circumstances and the statements made by the learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of this petition with a direction that if the petitioners file a detailed representation before the Vice-Chairman of the  Ghaziabad Development Authority within a period of one week from today, the said representation shall be disposed of strictly in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of the representation along with a certified copy of the order. We further direct that the installation of the Transformers/Diesel Generating Sets and Electric Poles shall be done strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan.

05/12/2005

SB

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 |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.