Sri Ram Gaund v. Counsel
Case at a glance
- Bench
- MUNIR
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
Sri Ram Gaund State Of U.P. And 7 Others Versus .....Petitioner(s) .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) Counsel for Respondent(s) : Kamalesh Singh : C.S.C., Sudhir Bharti Court No. - 49 HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J. The petitioner has come up with a prayer seeking a direction simplicitor to decide his representation dated 08.07.2025 addressed to the Sub Divisional Officer and the Tehsildar, Tehsil Hata, District Kushinagar. The grievance of the petitioner is regarding encroachment in Plot No. 247/0.1010 and Plot No. 267/0.1380 shown to be public utility land, by Santosh Singh s/o Kuber Singh, Radheshyam Singh s/o Seetaram Singh and Bhagwant Singh s/o Tribhuwan Singh. There is no substantive relief that the petitioner claims. In the absence of a substantive relief, it is not our province under Article 226 of the Constitution to favourably recommend the case of one litigant to the other. After all, the petitioner and the Sub Divisional Officer are both litigants before this Court. In the circumstances, we hold this petition for a mere direction to decide the petitioner's representation, to be not maintainable and dismiss the same as such. The petitioner will have liberty to move another writ petition on the same cause of action but for such substantive relief, as advised. September 11, 2025 Brijesh Maurya (J.J. Munir,J.)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.