Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16828 of 2009 Petitioner :- Maneesh Chaudhary Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Salil Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjay.Kr.Pandey.
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J. Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
In this case, notices had been issued to the petitioner to engage another counsel.
The office has placed on record the service of notice on the petitioner and therefore, notice will be deemed to be sufficient.
No one has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. Sri S.K. Pandey, is present for the respondent nos. 4 and 5.
Counter affidavit dated 10th July, 2009 filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 4 and 5 is not on record.
Office is directed to trace out the same and place it on record.
He has invited the attention of the Court to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 4 and 5 wherein it is stated that the order impugned in the present writ petition dated 22.12.2008 stood modified and in effect became non existent after the passing of the order on 1st January, 2009 by the Board of Revenue at the instance of one Sri Rajesh Kumar. Pursuant to the said order of the Board of Revenue a fresh order was passed by the District Magistrate on 7th March, 2009.
A recall application by Sri Rajesh Kumar and Sri Abhishek Chaudhary dated 19.03.2009 have been filed which is stated to be pending and at the same time, Sri Deepak Chaudhary and Sri Abhishek Chaudhary have filed a revision before the Board of Revenue against the said order dated 07th March, 2009 which is pending.
In the aforesaid circumstances, it has been stated in paragraph no. 13 of the counter affidavit that the order dated 22.12.2008 is no longer in existence and therefore the writ petition has become infructuous.
Sri Pandey is correct in his submissions therefore the petition is consigned to records without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to contest the fresh orders passed by the District Magistrate.
Order Date :- 29.5.2018 M. ARIF