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 0, Cited by 1]

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Poonam Devi vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 8 September, 2017

Bench: Chief Justice, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud

     SLP(C) 23928/2017
                                                     1

     ITEM NO.67                              COURT NO.1                  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.23928/2017

     (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 23-08-2017
     in WC No. 37470/2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
     Allahabad)


     POONAM DEVI                                                          Petitioner(s)

                                                    VERSUS

     THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.                                    Respondent(s)

(With appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T.) Date : 08-09-2017 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vandit Mishra, Adv.
Ms. Anuradha Mishra, Adv.
Ms. Tulika Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. Avanish Tripathi, Adv.
M/s Anuradha & Associates For Respondent(s) Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, AOR Mr. D.N. Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Vivek Tiwari, Adv.
Mr. Satyam Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Adv.
Mr. Ram Anugrah Singh, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following Signature Not Verified O R D E R Digitally signed by CHETAN KUMAR Date: 2017.09.09 13:25:31 IST Reason: Issue notice, fixing a returnable date within four weeks.
Dasti, in addition, is permitted. SLP(C) 23928/2017 2 As Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, learned counsel has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent No.4, no further notice need be issued. As far as the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are concerned, let a copy of the petition be served on the learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. In the meantime, there shall be stay of the operation of the order dated 23rd August, 2017, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ-C No.37470 of 2017. That apart, if the District Magistrate concerned has issued notice for fixing a date for fresh meeting, the same shall also be stayed, for we are of the prima facie view that the High Court could not have directed the District Magistrate to fix the date for holding the meeting for motion of no confidence without a fresh requisition.
(Chetan Kumar) (Shakti Parkash Sharma) Court Master Assistant Registrar