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


Devendra Kumar Bhatt v. U.P.S.R.T.C. & Others - WRIT - A No. 34042 of 2001 [2006] RD-AH 13612 (18 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).


                                                                               Court No.38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.  34042 of 2001

Devendra Kumar Bhatt


Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow & others

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J

The petitioner is an employee of the respondent-U.P. State Road Transport Corporation. He is aggrieved by the order dated 19.6.2000 passed by respondent no. 3, the General Manager of the Corporation imposing certain punishments on the petitioner. He is also aggrieved by the order dated 27/28.6.2001 passed by respondent no. 2, the Managing Director of the Corporation whereby his appeal has been dismissed.

I have heard Sri R.S.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Ajai Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the record. Pleadings between the parties have been exchanged and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.

Sri Ajai Singh, learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing a revision before the Chairman of the Corporation under Section 69 (A) of the Service Regulations of 1981.

Keeping in view that since an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, I would not be inclined to interfere in this writ petition. However, this writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction that in case if the petitioner files a revision under Regulation 69 (A) of the Regulations of 1981 before the Chairman of the Corporation within one month from today alongwith a certified copy of this order, the same shall be heard and decided, in accordance with law, on merits without taking any objection with regard to delay. The grounds which the petitioner may raise in the revision shall be dealt with specifically and the revisional authority shall pass a detailed and reasoned order on the revision filed by the petitioner. The decision may be taken by the revisional authority within three months from the date of filing of the revision.

With the aforesaid observations/directions, this writ petition is finally 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.