Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHAILESH KUMAR RAI versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Shailesh Kumar Rai v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 61077 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 18995 (9 November 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.R.P.Misra, J.

Hon.Shishir Kumar, J.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Madan Lal Srivastava and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in spite of submitting the application and all the formalities the petitioner has not been granted the mining lease.  It has further been submitted that the Forest Department has given a no objection certificate on 26.3.2003.  The District Magistrate has also issued a no objection certificate in favour of the petitioner regarding plot No.1669 measuring about 3.54 hectare.  The petitioner filed a representation to this effect but the petitioner came to know that the same is being finalized in favour of J.P.Cement.

We have considered the submission as well as perused the record.

The District Magistrate, Sonebhadra has granted no objection certificate in the month of May 2003. There is no explanation in the writ petition that what had happened after 2003.  The representation of the petitioner has been filed on 9.10.2006  after  a lapse of three years.  If in spite of no objection certificate the mining lease was not granted in favour of the petitioner it has not been explained by the petitioner that what steps have been taken by the petitioner.  It is clear from the record that it is only on 9.10.2006 the petitioner has submitted a representation.

In view of the aforesaid fact, as there is no explanation regarding the latches by the petitioner,  who approach the Court after a lapse of three years..  

We are not inclined to interfere in the writ petition.  The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of latches.

There shall be no order as to costs.

 

9.11.2006

SKD/

W.P. No.61077/2006


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.