Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Mandi Director, R.K.U.M.P.& Others v. Ram Prasad - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 1175 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 176 (3 January 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).



Court No.32

Special Appeal No. 1175 of 2005

Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad,

U.P. & others .....Appellant


Ram Prasad .....Respondent


Hon'ble S. Rafat Alam, J.

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.

This special appeal, under the Rules of the Court, arises from the order of Hon'ble Single Judge dated 26.5.2005 disposing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40488 of 1993 preferred by the sole respondent.

We have heard Sri B.D.Mandhayan, learned senior counsel for the appellants, and Sri A.K.Dixit, learned counsel for the sole respondent.

It is vehemently contended that in fact the counsel for the respondents-appellants was not heard by the Hon'ble Single Judge and without considering the facts disclosed in the counter affidavit the writ petition was decided.

It appears that the respondent-petitioner filed the writ petition claiming that he is working with the appellants since last several years and his service has not yet been regularized in terms of the Rules. The Hon'ble Single Judge, therefore, having heard the matter, by an innocuous order, disposed the writ petition with the direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner-respondent for regularization in accordance with law. Sri B.D.Mandhayan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, however, submitted that the Hon'ble Single Judge has also indicated certain facts touching upon the merits of the case which may cause prejudice to the appellants while considering the claim of the petitioner-respondent for regularization. It is pointed out that the observation in the order, that the respondent-petitioner is working, as daily wager since 1987, is not correct, as after 1988 he is continuing on contract basis and not as a daily wager. However, this fact is disputed by Mr. A.K.Dixit, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent.

Be that as it may, we are of the view that the Hon'ble Single Judge in fact has not expressed any opinion in respect of the merit of the case and has simply directed the respondents-appellants to consider the claim of the petitioner-respondent regarding regularization in accordance with law.

We are, therefore, of the view that the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge does not suffer from any error. At this juncture Sri B.D.Mandhyan, Senior Advocate submitted that some more time may be granted for deciding the claim of regularization of the sole respondent.  We, accordingly, modify the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge to the extent that the claim regarding regularization of the petitioner-respondent shall be considered and disposed of by the appellants in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order by a reasoned order and the orders of this Court shall not be treated to have expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.  

With the above order, this special appeal stands finally disposed of.

Dated : 3.1.2006



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 |

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