Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17064 of 2006 Petitioner :- Janpriya Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Mittal
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
1. Called in revise. None appeared to press this writ petition. Learned Standing Counsel is present for respondents. In the circumstances, we ourselves have perused the record.
2. By means of present writ petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs: "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record and quashing the order dated 28.1.2006 and 1.2.2006 passed by Joint Housing Commissioner/Joint Registrar, U. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow (Annexure No.6 and 7 to the writ petition).
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record and quashing the notice vide letter No. 128/Complaint dated 25.11.2005 isued by Sahkari Adhikari (Avas) U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Nirman Khand-28, Kamla Nagar, Agra (Annexure-3 to the writ petition).
(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record and quashing the show cause notice dated 4.3.2006 issued by Joint Housing Commissioner/Joint Registrar, U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition).
(iv) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to proceed strictly in accordance with the statutory procedure provided Under Section 66 of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 and further to restrain the respondents from harassing the petitioner society on the pretext of inquiry/inspection under Section 66 of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965."
3. We ourselves have gone through the pleadings, grounds as also reliefs sought and find that petitioner is not able to make out a case so as to justify interference of this Court by granting reliefs, as prayed for.
4. Moreover, it appears that either the cause of action no more survives or the petitioner has lost interest in this matter or it has otherwise become infructuous and, probably for this reason, none is interested to have decided this matter on merits and that is why, counsel for petitioner is absent.
5. Dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 30.10.2018 Siddhant Sahu