Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 201656 (ALL)

ARUN KUMAR DWIVEDI v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF/ PRIN. SECY., REVENUE, LKO. AND OTHERS

A227/6081/2025 · 2025-10-15

Jaspreet Singh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6081 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel. Sri Mohan Singh learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent no.6. In view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, notice to the private-respondent is dispensed with. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit which is taken on record. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a revision is pending before the respondent no.2 which may be expedited. From a perusal of the extracts of the order sheet, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure no.3, it would indicate that notice was required to be issued to the respondent no.3 in the revision, however, in furtherance thereof, counsel for the petitioner has referred to the supplementary affidavit filed today most specifically Annexure-4 to indicate that Sri Vikas Chaturvedi, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.4-Laxmi Narayan and such service is complete. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no gainful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending however ends of justice can be met by directing revisional Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anil Kumar, Anurag Pandey, Rajendra Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Mohan Singh Arun Kumar Dwivedi .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/ Prin. Secy., Revenue, Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) authority to consider and decide the revision provided that there is no legal impediment and after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties on merits. With the aforesaid the petition is disposed of. It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merit and the court concerned shall decide the revision strictly in accordance with law. October 15, 2025 Harshita A227 No. 6081 of 2025 2 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench