Allahabad High Court
Hira Lal Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 25 September, 2019
Author: Piyush Agrawal
Bench: Piyush Agrawal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 90 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21717 of 2018 Petitioner :- Hira Lal Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav,Abhishek Kumar Yadav,Bhola Nath Yadav,Sheo Ram Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no. 3 to decide his application for renewal of his driving licence no. 330/Azh/87.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the State - respondents.
It is stated that the petitioner is a resident of Village - Palia Mafi, Police Station - Phulpur, District - Azamgarh. The petitioner applied for grant of driving licence for heavy motor vehicle, which was granted on 11.06.1981 after due test and verification, the validity of which was upto 10.06.1984. The said licence was renewed from time to time.
It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Driver in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow and was posted in Azamgarh. The driving licence of the petitioner was transferred from Varanasi to Azamgarh and the same was registered in the Office of respondent no. 3, being D.L. No. H-330/Azamgarh/87 dated 15.07.1987, which was renewed upto 14.07.1990. The driving licence of the petitioner was lastly renewed upto 21.08.2018 and hence, it was valid upto 21.08.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for renewal of his driving licence by submitting renewal application in the Office of respondent no. 4 on 22.08.2018, but the same is pending and no action has yet been taken thereon in spite of various request having been made by the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's renewal application may be decided within a shorted possible time period.
To the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel has no objection.
Be that as it may, no fruitful purpose will be served in keeping the matter pending. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 4 to pass an appropriate order on the petitioner's renewal application, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
The petitioner undertakes to serve a certified copy of this order upon the authority concerned within 10 days from today.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the claim of the petitioner and the authority concerned is free to pass an independent order in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 25.9.2019 Amit Mishra