Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PRABHAKAR SINGHAL versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Prabhakar Singhal v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 42555 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 13221 (8 August 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.10

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42555 of 2006                              

Prabhakar Singhal . . . . . . . . .  . . .  .  . . .. .  . .  . . . . . . . . . .. Petitioner.

                                   Versus

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

        ----

Hon'ble A.K. Yog,J.

Hon'ble R.K.Rastogi,J.

This is a writ petition challenging the  orders dated 17.6.1006 and 1.7.2006 ( Annexure no. 7 and 8 to the writ petition )

Heard  the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the  respondents and perused the record.

According to the petitioner vide para 14 of the  writ petition there are total 7,430 units in the  village in question and there are already two fair price shops in the said village Bijauli. The petitioner has also pleaded that third shop has been allotted  to Smt. Radha Kumari, respondent no.4, under political pressure in breach of the criterion laid down under  various government orders for determining the number of fair price shops in a village.

In that view of the matter  and considering the  nature of the issues raised, we direct the petitioner to file a fresh and comprehensive representation along with certified copy of this order as well as complete copy of  the Writ Petition with all Annexures before respondent no. 1 within three weeks from today and on such representation being filed, as stipulated above, the concerned  competent authority shall decide the same   within twelve  weeks of the receipt of the representation as contemplated  above, exercising its unfettered discretion on the basis of record before him in accordance with relevant Rules, Government Orders, Scheme/Policy after hearing the parties concerned without being influenced by any of the observations in this judgment since this court has not entered into merits of the present case. Till decision of the representation of the petitioner, the impugned order dated 1.7.2006 ( Annexure no. 8 to the writ petition ) if not already implemented, shall remain stayed and the same will be subject to the decision  of the said  representation.

The writ petition is finally disposed of subject to the above directions.

No order as to costs.

Dated: 8. 8..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.