Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM SAKAL SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Sakal Singh v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 42441 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 13240 (8 August 2006)

 

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

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner, aggrieved by an order passed by the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, dated 25th April 2006, approached this Court by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

By the impugned order the Commissioner has dismissed the petitioner's revision which was filed against the order of Naib Tahsildar dated 1st December 2004 whereby the Naib Tahsildar pursuant to the filing of application for recall of the order by the contesting respondent has stayed the operation of the order against which the petitioner approached the revisional court by means of revision. The revisional court has dismissed the revision on the ground that the order challenged is in the nature of interlocutory order and is not covered by the phrase "case decided'. Therefore, relying upon decisions of this Court reported in 1992 ACJ 632 and 1990 RD 400 dismissed the revision.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that the order passed by the Commissioner, in any way, suffers from any error of law much less an error on the face of record to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

There is yet another reason. The matter is pending at the level of Naib Tahsildar where the application for restoration is pending. The petitioner, without approaching the Naib Tahsildar with an application either to vacate the interim order or with the prayer that the matter be finally decided, has approached this Court.

In view of what has been stated above I  find no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.

Dt: 8.8.2006.

mhu - 42441/06


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.