Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ASHOK CHATURVEDI versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ashok Chaturvedi v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 37345 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 11683 (18 July 2006)

 

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. 1

         Civil  Misc. Writ Petition No. 37345 of 2006

Ashok Chaturvedi . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . .  . . . . . ..Petitioner.

    Versus

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

 ----

Hon'ble Yatindra Singh,J.

Hon'ble R.K.Rastogi,J.

One Ashutosh Bajaj was allotted the plot in dispute. He  constructed a house thereon. Thereafter it was purchased  by the petitioner  in the year 1992. This allotment was cancelled on 18.10.2002 on the ground that  the petitioner is  running a PCO. The petitioner filed a representation for  recalling  this order  on 20.11.2002. This was allowed subject to  payment of Rs.9,32,580/-. The petitioner filed  second representation dated 2.6.2004 and on this representation the impugned order was passed demanding  Rs.13,12,740/- for restoring the allotment, hence, the present writ petition.

We have heard  counsel for the petitioner, the Standing Counsel and Sri  Anurag Khanna for the  respondents.

The counsel for the petitioner submits that no opportunity was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order dated 18.10.2002. The PCO itself was allotted  for the first time on 12.2.1999. This allotment was also cancelled on 22.10.2002. All these facts have been mentioned in the representations dated 20.11.2002 and 2.6.2004, but no reason has been mentioned as to why  explanation of the petitioner has not been accepted. The orders dated 28.5.2004 and 5.7.2006 are not reasoned orders. In view of the same, these orders are hereby quashed. The respondent no. 2 may consider  the representations dated 20.11.2002 and 2.6.2004 of the petitioner and pass reasoned order thereon within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

Dated:18.7.2006

RPP.


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.