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


Manish Kumar Sinha & Another v. Nagar Palika Parishad, Jaunpur & Others - WRIT - C No. - 42116 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 15094 (6 September 2007)

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).


Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.

Heard counsel for the petitioners and Sri Kshitij Shailendra appearing for the respondent no. 3.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 9.8.2007 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order dated 18.7.2005 passed by the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Jaunpur. Notices have been issued by the Municipal Board to both the parties with regard to mutation after the death of Smt. Usha Kiran Sinha wife of late Ganpat Sahai Sinha. On the application filed by the petitioners their names were recorded claiming themselves to be successor of late Ganpat Sahai Sinha. The application was filed by the respondent no. 3 on which the Municipal Board has set aside the order and issued notices to both the parties for fresh hearing. The appeal has been dismissed by the appellate authority with the observation that both the parties have opportunity to have their say before the Municipal Board hence it is not a case in which any interference be made in the appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioners expressed his apprehension that the petitioners' case may be prejudiced in view of the various observations made by the appellate court in the order dismissing the appeal. The apprehension of learned counsel for the petitioners is misconceived. The matter being pending for fresh decision before the Municipal Board, the Municipal Board shall consider the respective case of both the parties and take a decision. The appellate authority itself has observed that both the parties will have their say before the Municipal Board. The appellate authority neither intended to record any conclusive finding regarding the claim of both the parties. It is, however, observed that while deciding the claim of both the parties any observation made by the appellate authority, shall not be treated as conclusive or expression of any finding in favour of either of the parties. This is not a fit case to be interfered in exercise of jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution.

With the above observations the writ petition is dismissed.




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.