Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Satyabeer Singh Yadav vs State Of U.P . on 12 May, 2016

Bench: Jagdish Singh Khehar, C. Nagappan

                                                            1

     ITEM NO.33                                  COURT NO.3                      SECTION XI

                                   S U P R E M E C O U R T O F                I N D I A
                                           RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

     Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).13540/2016

     (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 15/02/2016
     in CMWP No.29019/2015 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
     Allahabad)

     SATYABEER SINGH YADAV                                                        Petitioner(s)

                                                           VERSUS

     STATE OF U.P AND ORS.                                                        Respondent(s)

     (With appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and interim relief)

     Date : 12/05/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.

     CORAM :
                             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR
                             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPAN

     For Petitioner(s)                    Mr.Neeraj Kr.Sharma, Adv.
                                          Mr.Vivek Sharma, Adv.
                                          Mrs.Priyanka Dixit, Adv.
                                          Mr. Yadav Narender Singh, Adv.

     For Respondent(s)

                         Upon hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                                              O R D E R

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. We find no justification whatsoever to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.

As a sequel to the above, pending interlocutory Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by application also stands disposed of.

Date: 2016.05.13 17:23:05 TLT Reason:

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner states, that the appellate remedy from an order passed  2 by the District Level Committee is to the High Level Committee and not to the State Level Committee and, as such, liberty be granted to the petitioner to avail of his remedy before the High Level Committee. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we consider it just and appropriate to grant liberty to the petitioner to seek his appellate remedy before the competent authority.

 (SATISH KUMAR YADAV)                              (RENUKA SADANA)
     AR-CUM-PS                                       COURT MASTER