Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ANIL KUMAR SHARMA versus NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Anil Kumar Sharma v. New Okhla Industries Development Authority & Another - WRIT - C No. 31144 of 2002 [2005] RD-AH 2516 (8 September 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.37

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24083 of 2003

Anil Kumar Sharma  vs. New Okhla Development Authority, Gautam Buch Nagar and others.

With

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31144 of 2002

Anil Kumar Sharma  vs. New Okhla Development Authority, Gautam Buch Nagar and another.

Hon'ble R.K.Agrawal, J.

Hon'ble (Mrs.) M. Chaudhary, J.

By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 5th January, 2000 passed by the Assistant General Manager (Residental) New Okhla Development Authority, district Gautam Budh Bagar- respondent no.2, filed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition and notice dated 19th July, 2002, filed as Annexure 10 to the writ petition. The petitioner further prays for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to restore the possession of the petitioner and his family over the plot in dispute and not to interfere in the possession of the petitioner except in accordance with law. From the records of the writ petition and the averments made in paragraph 7 of the writ petition we find that the petitioner has already instituted a suit in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Devision), Gautam Budh Nagar being Original Suit No. 42 of 2000 in which the order dated 5th January, 2000 and other subsequent orders are sought to be declared illegal, null and void.

As the petitioner is pursuing the remedy by way of filing a suit he cannot be permitted to take recourse of writ jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as it amounts to permit the petitioner to pursue two parallel remedies which is not permissible under law. The writ petition is dismissed on this ground alone. The interim order stands vacated.

8.9.05

MZ.


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.