Committee Of Management Of Shri Sarju Prasad v. State Of UP And 5 Others
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
the counter affidavit, this writ petition stands disposed of directing the
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and stand taken in the counter affidavit, this writ petition stands disposed of directing the respondent no.6 to send requisite report to the respondent no.2 within a period of one month from the date of production…
Judgment
Heard Sri P.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.P. Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Grievance of the writ petitioner is regarding non-consideration of their application dated 31.05.2022 moved under Regulation 9 Chapter 7 of Regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and also another application/representation dated 20.04.2023.
Initially, counter affidavit was called for from the respondents.
Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos.2 and 3 indicating the difficulty in taking decision taking a plea that requisite report has not been submitted by respondent no.6.
In the opinion of the Court, once statutory proceedings are pending before respondents, non-consideration thereof on account of non- submission of requisite report by one or the other official cannot be said to be justified.
Operative part
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and stand taken in the counter affidavit, this writ petition stands disposed of directing the respondent no.6 to send requisite report to the respondent no.2 within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the respondent no.6.
As soon as the respondent no.2 receives the report from the respondent 2 WRIC No. 36353 of 2024 no.6, it shall take up the aforesaid representations of the petitioner, and after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other concerned, final decision shall be taken within a period of two months, in accordance with law. March 19, 2026 S.A. (Kshitij Shailendra,J.) SALMAN AHMAD SALMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: the counter affidavit, this writ petition stands disposed of directing the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
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.