Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM BHAJAN NIGAM versus HEMANT KUMAR AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Bhajan Nigam v. Hemant Kumar And Others - WRIT - A No. 26213 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 16616 (21 September 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

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J

Heard counsel for the parties.

This writ petition has been filed against orders dated 30.7.2005,14.10.2005 and 6.4.2006 appended as Annexures 5,7 and 8 to the writ petition.

By order dated 30.7.2005, evidence of defendant was closed by the Court. By order dated 14.10.2005, application for recall of the order passed by respondent n. 3 was rejected and by order dated 6.4.2006, respondent no. 2 has upheld the order of the Prescribed Authority.

Counsel for the petitioner states that his additional witnesses could not appear before the Court on 30.5.2006, the date fixed for evidence as there was flood in the area, hence the Prescribed Authority has wrongly closed his evidence.

Counsel for the respondents contends that the petitioner had been taking date after dates since 2001and had not produced additional evidence. Hence, the Court has rightly closed evidence.

In view of facts and circumstances of the case it is evident that the witnesses of the petitioner could not appear before the Court due to flood in the area, which is natural calamity and, therefore, the order dated 30.5.2006 cannot be sustained. However, also in view of the fact that the petitioner had been taken date after dates and had not been producing witnesses, it would be in the interest of justice and fair play that proceedings are concluded at the earliest.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the petitioner shall give all evidence that he requires before the Prescribed Authority on the date fixed by this Court, i.e., 27th October, 2006 or any other next date fixed by the Prescribed Authority, but the case shall be concluded by him within a period of two months from today..

The petitioner is directed to move an application together with a copy of this order before the Prescribed Authority within 15 days from today informing the Prescribed Authority that 27th October, 2006 has been fixed by this Court for giving evidence which may be taken by the Prescribed Authority on that day or any other date fixed by him,  The Prescribed Authority will then proceed to adjudicate the release application and shall decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law in not later than a period of two months from today i.e. by 21st November, 2006. within a further period of one month.

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

Dated 21st September, 2006

kkb


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.