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 2]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ku.Neha Sharma vs State Of M.P. on 11 August, 2015

1                        W.P. No.1159/2010
(Ku. Neha Sharma Vs. State of M.P. And Others)


11/08/2015
        Shri Prashant Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
        Shri R.P. Gupta, Deputy Government Advocate for
  respondents No.1 and 2/State.

By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner has approached this Court with limited grievance of the nature as claimed in this writ petition that direction may be issued to respondents to refund the fee deposited by petitioner and compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for spoiling his two precious years. Petitioner has approached this Court on the strength of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.1235/2009 decided on 02/12/2009.

Learned counsel for respondent No.5 has contended that as a matter of fact, relief claimed in this writ petition for refund of fee has already been granted vide (Annexure R/5-1) dated 23/02/2010 No cause of action subsist to further prosecute this matter, accordingly, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

Aforesaid contention is refuted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is entitled for compensation. In the opinion of this Court, such relief cannot be countenanced. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.

However, if the petitioner has any grievance as 2 W.P. No.1159/2010 (Ku. Neha Sharma Vs. State of M.P. And Others) regards relief he may take recourse to law or file a representation (if so advised). If such a representation is filed by the petitioner, this Court hopes and trusts that same shall be considered and decided by the respondents within reasonable time.

(Rohit Arya) Judge vc