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


Shiv Mani Tripathi v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 52666 of 2004 [2005] RD-AH 1725 (22 July 2005)


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. 32

Writ Petition No. 52666 of 2004


Shiv Mani Tripathi                                  Petitioner


State of U.P. & others                           Respondents



Hon. Vikram Nath,

Heard Sri Shashi Nandan learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Satish Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. K. Tewari learned Standing counsel for the respondents.

The petition is directed against the order of suspension dated 06.12.2004 on account of certain irregularities committed during 1994-95 Kumbh Mela. It is stated that  3 other engineers vig. S.S. Ahluwalia, Shailendra Tripathi and S.N. Yadav along with petitioner were suspended on similar and identical charges in contemplation of departmental inquiry. It is further stated that till date no charge sheet has been served on the petitioner.  Today supplementary affidavit has been filed annexing along with a copy of the order of the State Government dated 23.03.2005 (Annexure -SA 1) in respect of Sri Shailendra Tripathi, Executive Engineer, who had also been suspended along with petitioner whereby his suspension has been revoked upon representation being made by Sri Tripathi. Similarly another Government Order dated 23.03.2005 is annexed as Annexure- SA-2 to the supplementary affidavit,  which is in respect of Sri S.N. Yadav,  Assistant Engineer and his suspension has also been revoked upon submission of representation. Fourth officer in the list Sri S.S. Ahaluwalia has since retired from service. It is contended that  since appointing authority of the petitioner is Engineer in Chief, therefore, the State Government has not passed any order in the case of the petitioner. It is further alleged that the petitioner has also submitted a representation for revocation of the suspension order on 10.05.2005 to the Engineer in Chief but no orders have been passed. It is thus contended that appropriate direction be issued for early disposal of the representation.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case it is directed that the Engineer in Chief (Investigation and Planning), Public Works Department, U.P. Lucknow (respondent no. 2) before whom the representation has been made by the petitioner for revocation of the suspension order shall decide the same and pass appropriate orders within the period of 6 weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

It is however, made clear that by this order the validity of suspension order has not adjudicated and the respondent 2 shall pass orders on the representation on its own merits within the time  frame fixed by this Court.

The petition is, accordingly disposed off.

Dtd. 22.07.05

v.k.updh. (112)  



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.