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


Narsingh Rai v. Smt. Dulari And Others - WRIT - C No. 63120 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 19129 (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).


Court No.10

             Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 61320 of 2006                        

Uttar Pradesh Roadways Employees Union

and another  ... . . . . . . . ...  . .  .  . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Petitioners.


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


Hon'ble A.K. Yog,J.

Hon'ble R.K.Rastogi,J.

The petitioners have approached  to this Court by filing this  writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 11.10.2006 ( Annexure no. 9 to the writ petition ) passed by the Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Nigam, Head-Quarter, Lucknow  ( UPSRTC) ( Respondent no.2  ) and the order dated 27.10.2006  ( Annexure no. 10  ) passed by  the Assistant Regional Manager, Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Civil Lines Depot, Allahabad ( respondent no. 3   to the writ petition.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as  the learned   Counsel for the contesting  respondents.

Letter dated 12.2.1997 ( Annexure no. 4 to the writ petition ) shows that one room only was allotted to the petitioner, Uttar Pradesh Roadways Employees Union at Civil Lines Bus Station, Allahabad. On the other hand it has been argued  that interest of the passengers cannot be sacrificed  by allowing  use of even one room by the  said union.

Be that as it may, it is for the State Government  and the Administration ( including UPSRTC ) to take policy decision in this matter  and pass appropriate orders. For this purpose we direct the petitioners  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 the respondent no. 2  within two weeks from today and on such representation being filed, as stipulated above, the concerned authority shall decide the same within eight 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.

Writ Petition is finally disposed of subject to the above directions.

No order as to costs.

Dated: 13.11.2006



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.