High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Mohd. Inam v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. Industrial Devlp. & Ors. - WRIT - C No. 46435 of 2004  RD-AH 1309 (3 November 2004)
(Court No. 10)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition NO. 46435 of 2004
Mohd. Inam Versus State of U.P. and others.
Hon'ble A.K. Yog, J.
Hon'ble M.P. Singh, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.P. Singh, Advocate representing respondents No. 5,6 and 7 as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no. 1,2,3 and 4.
Preliminary objection raised by Sri S.P. Singh, Advocate is that petitioner has no locus standi in the matter.
By means of the present petition, petitioner prays for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents authorities to demarcate the land granted against the mining patta of Tehsil Behat, District, Saharanpur in favour of resondents no. 5 to 7 according to the notification dated 20-11-2002 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) and other for issuing a writ in the nature of interim mandamus restraining the respondents no. 5 to 7 from excavation/mining works in Tehsil, Behat, District, Saharanpur till disposal of representation of the petitioner dated 13-6-2004 pending before the respondent no.2.
Copy of the alleged representation dated 13-6-2004 and that of reminder dated 17-8-2004 has been filed as Annexures-3 and 4 to the petition. Annexure-3 purports to be an application on behalf of villagers who had filed said application. However, Annexure-4 which is reminder, purports to have been sent by the petitioner. Contents of said reminder dated 17-8-2004/Annexure-4 to the writ petition clearly shows that petitioner was not one of the applicants in the said representation.
Relevant Para-5 of the petition reads:
"5. That the petitioner is permanent resident of village and post Faizabad, Tehsil Behat District Saharanpur and is active social worker and represented on behalf of the other villagers residing in village Fzizabad."
From the aforesaid facts noticed by us on record, it is clear that original application was not filed by the petitioner and it is also clear that even the land of the petitioner was not involved even if it is assumed that the facts mentioned in the representation dated 13-6-2004 are correct. None of the applicants who had filed application dated 13-6-2004/Annexure-3 have approached this Court. Accordingly, this petition is not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner.
Writ petition is dismissed in limine.
No order as to costs.
However, it is made clear that this order will not preclude the respondents from considering the representation dated 13-6-2004 filed by the villagers.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.