Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HIRA LAL versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' SECRETARY FINANCE & REVENUE U.P. & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Hira Lal v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secretary Finance & Revenue U.P. & Ors. - WRIT - C No. 61636 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 19107 (13 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'ble Anjani Kumar, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner by means of this writ petition has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to auction and grant fishing right to the petitioner with a further prayer that respondents be directed to decide petitioner's representation dated 5.9.2006 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition). The order passed on the representation of the petitioner clearly demonstrates that the A.D.M. concerned has issued the direction to the Sub-Divisional Officer concern to proceed for grant of fishing lease in accordance with law. It has also restrained any body from fishing till the fishing rights are settled in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid order, to which it is not denied that any violation is being made, the petitioner approached this Court with the prayer referred to above.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has miserably failed to demonstrate that respondents are under any statutory obligation to decide petitioner's objection as prayed for or that any party is restrained from fishing in the pond in question. It is admitted case of the petitioner that the pond in question is the property of the Gaon Sabha. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also failed to demonstrate that the petitioner has any right much less a substantial right for which a writ prayed for may be granted.

No other point is argued.

In view of what has been stated above this writ petition is dismissed.

Dt: 13.11.2006.

mhu - 61636/06


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.