Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 5]

Allahabad High Court

State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. vs Smt. Sunita Devi on 2 May, 2017

Author: Arun Tandon

Bench: Arun Tandon, Rekha Dikshit





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 10
 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 284 of 2016
 
Appellant :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors.
 
Respondent :- Smt. Sunita Devi
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Shukla
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Parmatma Nand Ojha
 

 
Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
 

Hon'ble Mrs. Rekha Dikshit,J.

Order on  Crl. Misc. Delay Condonation Application.

Heard  Sri Piyush Shukla, learned counsel  for appellant and perused the record.

This is an application supported  by an affidavit  seeking condonation of delay of 178 days in filing the present  appeal.  

 Cause shown is sufficient. The delay condonation application is allowed and the delay in filing the present appeal is condoned.

Office is directed to allot regular number to this appeal. 

(Rekha Dikshit,J) (Arun Tandon,J) Order Date :- 2.5.2017 G.S Court No. - 10 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 284 of 2016 Appellant :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors.

Respondent :- Smt. Sunita Devi Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Parmatma Nand Ojha Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.

Hon'ble Mrs. Rekha Dikshit,J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. 

This special appeal has been filed  against the judgement and order dated 26.8.2015 passed by learned Single Judge requiring the Director, Medical  Health Ayurvedic and Unani, U.P. at Lucknow to examine the grievance of the petitioner  in the light of the interim order passed in the cases of Abdul Aziz  Vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ Petition No.1285 (S/S) of 2003 and in term of the interim order dated 1.12.2005 passed in Writ Petition No.7810 (S/S) of 2005 (Subhash Chandra Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and others).

We are of the considered opinion that such direction of the leaned Single Judge requiring the authority concerned to pass final orders in terms of the interim order and simultaneously disposing of the writ petition with the said direction is not called for. The Writ Court  should examine the merit of the case finally  instead of issuing a  mandamus  to follows an interim order passed in a pending petition  as merits of such petition is still to be finally adjudicated.

Further no opportunity  has been afforded to the appellants to demonstrate that  the  interim order so issued was  legally not justified. The order dated 26.8.2015 passed by learned Single Judge cannot be sustained, it is hereby set aside. Writ Petition is restored to its original number  and be decided afresh on merits. 

Appeal is allowed.

(Rekha Dikshit,J) (Arun Tandon,J) Order Date :- 2.5.2017.G.S