Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NAFIS AHMAD AND OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Nafis Ahmad And Others v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 64759 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 20132 (28 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

Court No.10

             Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 64759 of 2006                        

Nafis Ahmad and others.  . . . . . . . .  . . .. . . . ...  . .  .  . .Petitioners.

                                   Versus

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

        ----

Hon'ble A.K. Yog,J.

Hon'ble R.K.Rastogi,J.

This is a writ petition for  quashing the impugned order  dated 6.10.2006 ( Annexure -3 to the writ petition ) passed by respondent no. 3 and also for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioners to  conduct cattle market on Tuesday after taking necessary fee etc. from them.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the  respondents.

The matter relates to holding of a cattle market in village Gujjarapur Mauza Taparana District Muzaffarnagar. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 44011 of 2006

( Nafis Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and others ) and the said writ petition was finally disposed of with a direction to  the petitioner to file a representation  within specified time before the competent authority. The petitioner appears to have file an application dated 5.9.2006 before the District Magistrate,Muzaffarnagar, (a copy of which is  annexed as Annexure no.2 to this writ petition  ).

It appears that the District Magistrate referred the matter  to sub-ordinate authorities and obtained a report from the Upper Mukhya Adhikari, Zila Panchayat, Muzaffarnagar ( respondent no. 3 to the writ petition ), who submitted his report dated 6.10.2006 to the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar.

As the records stand, it appears that the District Magistrate passed final order  on 11.10.2006  and rejected the application of the petitioners. The decision taken by the District Magistrate as well as the report dated 6.10.2006 submitted  by the respondent no. 3 were communicated to the petitioners by means of letter dated 19.10.2006 sent by the Upper Mukhya Adhikari, Zila Panchayat, Muzaffarnagar  ( page 41 of the  writ paper book ). According to the petitioners, copy of the order dated 11.10.2006 passed by  the District Magistrate  was not enclosed  along with the papers  communicated to them, hence, they are not in a position to challenge the said order. It is to be noted that the petitioners have  filed this writ petition for a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 6.10.2006 and also  for as writ of mandamus  directing the respondents to permit them to hold cattle market  on Tuesday ( instead of Monday in  respect of which they have been granted licence ). There is no averment in the writ petition that the petitioners had asked for copy of the order dated 11.10.2006 passed by the District Magistrate  on their representation and the same has been denied. In absence of any ground to challenge  the order dated 11.10.2006  of the District Magistrate and the corresponding relief  for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the said order dated 11.10.2006, we have no doubt that  even if the writ petition is allowed  and a writ of certiorari is issued  quashing the order dated 6.10.2006 ( which is in fact  not an order but a report  submitted to the District Magistrate) the petitioners will not be benefitted in any manner in as much as  order of the District Magistrate dated 11.10.2006 rejecting the  representation of the petitioners will remain in tact. In that view of the matter, exercise  to entertain this writ petition at this stage  will be exercise in futility.

Let the petitioners approach the  authority conceded  for  obtaining   a copy of the order dated 11.10.2006 passed  the District Magistrate, Muzaffar- -nagar by filing an application within two weeks from today and if such an application is filed, the concerned competent authority  or the District Magistrate concerned shall ensure that a copy of the said order dated 11.10.2006 referred to  in Annexure-3 to the writ petition is supplied  to them within ten days of the receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioners will be at liberty  to seek redressal of their grievance, if they are so advised,  after obtaining copy of the said order.

The writ petition is dismissed subject to  above observations.

No orders as to costs.

Dated: 28.11.2006

RPP.                                                                              


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.