Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 161079 (ALL)

DR. RAJENDRA KUMAR SAINI v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. FINANCE DEPTT. LKO. AND 6 OTHERS

WRIC/8516/2025 · 2025-09-04

Pankaj Bhatia

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 8516 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 2. The present petition has been filed with the following prayers: "a. kindly issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chit Funds, Lucknow to take cognizance of the petitioners' representation dated 27/07/2025 (Annexure No 1) and to take appropriate legal and administrative measures as per merit of facts stated therein. b. kindly issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chit Funds, Lucknow to immediately seize the Bank account of the Provincial Medical Service Association. c. kindly issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the concerned respondents to hold enquiry against the then Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chit Funds, Lucknow and opposite parties no.4, 5 and 6 for having completely failed in his duty to ensure the rule of law as regards the various orders passed by him and about the given Association." Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Nutan Thakur, Nikki Singh, Raghvendra Kumar Saini Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Dr. Rajendra Kumar Saini .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Finance Deptt. Lko. And 6 Others .....Respondent(s) 3. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has given a representation to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, which may be directed to be decided expeditiously. 4. A perusal of Annexure-1, which is a representation, appears to be slipshod without any material to substantiate the allegation. Another petition filed earlier by the same petitioner is said to be pending. 5. Considering the fact that no statutory provisions could be shown under which the representation has been filed. No writ as prayed for can be granted. 6. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. September 4, 2025 akverma WRIC No. 8516 of 2025 2 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench