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


Ifrahim & Others v. Collector Bijnor & Others - WRIT - C No. 27442 of 2003 [2005] RD-AH 7593 (15 December 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.38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27442 of 2003

Ifrahim & others                Vs.         Collector, Bijnor & others

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J

This writ petition has been filed with the prayer for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to dispose of the application of the petitioner dated 20/28.6.2003. It is the only prayer which has been pressed by the petitioner.

By the impugned order dated 4.7.2003, this writ petition was disposed of with the direction that the aforesaid application dated 20/28.6.2003 of the petitioner may be decided by the Sub-Divisional Officer. In pursuance thereof, the Sub-Divisional Officer has decided the said application on 1.9.2003.

However, ignorant of the fact that the said application had been decided, Smt. Durga Devi Poddar and others as well as Sri Om Kant Singh and others, filed two applications praying for recall of the order dated 4.7.2003 on the ground that they should also be heard before the Sub-Divisional Officer passes such an order. On such grounds this Court, on 19.12.2003, recalled the order dated 4.7.2003. After the recall, this writ petition has been placed before me for admission.

Sri Govind Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the fact that the application of the petitioner dated 20/28.6.2003 has already been decided by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 1.9.2003. The said order dated 1.9.2003 is not under challenge in this writ petition. The only prayer made in this writ petition has already been exhausted. As such, this writ petition has become infructuous.

This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs.




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.