Shri Ravindra Nath Mishra And 4 Others v. Tripathi
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed as not pressed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
- U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 s. 99
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed as not pressed with the aforesaid liberty.
Judgment
Shri Ravindra Nath Mishra And 4 Others Versus .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Avinash Tripathi, Kaushalendra K. Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anjani Nath Khare, C.S.C., Dr. Ashutosh Mishra, Himanshu Kumar Bachhil Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
Heard Sri Avinash Tripathi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.1, Dr. Ashutosh Mishra, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 and 4, Sri Pankaj Srivastava, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records.
By means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 17.01.2024, passed by the Cooperative Tribunal, U.P. Lucknow in Appeal No.60 of 2023, under Section 99 of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 and order dated 15.10.2025, passed by the Tribunal in Review Application No.M-6/2024.
The learned counsel for the opposite parties raised an objection that the award of an judicial order passed by ae tribunal can only be challenged by a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable.
Dr. Ashutosh Mishra, the learned counsel has raised an objection that the opposite parties no.3 and 4 were not parties to 2 WRIC No. 11060 of 2025 the proceedings from which this petition arises and therefore they have been wrongly impleaded.
Confronted with the aforesaid objection, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not want to press the petition and he seeks liberty to file a fresh petition under the appropriate provision.
Operative part
Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed as not pressed with the aforesaid liberty.
As the private opposite parties had filed a caveat and they have put in appearance in furtherance thereof, it is directed that in case the petitioner files a fresh petition he will serve its advance copy on the learned counsel present today.
Let the certified copy of the judgement annexed with the petition be returned to the learned counsel for the petitioner after retaining its photocopy on record. November 15, 2025 Ram. (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed as not pressed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 — s. 99.
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.