Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18422 of 2019 Petitioner :- Shakuntala Devi Respondent :- District Junde Banda Counsel for Petitioner :- Markanday Singh,Rahul Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Ashish Mishra Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner is before this Court with the request to command and decide the representation dated 21.05.2014 pending before respondent i.e. Office of Distric Judge, Banda within the time stipulated by this Court.
The matter was taken up on 19.11.2019 and this Court has proceeded to pass following order:-
"On the request of Shri Anil Babu, learned counsel for respondent, the case is passed over for enabling him to seek the instruction in the matter. In case, the representation so moved by the petitioner on 21.05.2014 is already addressed, the same may also be brought on record on the next date fixed in the matter.
Put up this matter 26.11.2019 as fresh."
In response to the order dated 19.11.2019 passed by this Court, Shri Anil Babu, learned counsel, who represents the contesting respondent, has placed detailed instructions dated 22.11.2019 sent by District Judge, Banda, wherein, reliance has been placed in paragraph 20, which reads as under:-
"20. That the contents of para no.2 of the writ petition are false. The procedure adopted by the respondent was not perverse in any manner. In fact the representation of the petitioner's husband was forwarded to this Hon'ble Court vide letter no.2145/I dated 19.10.2013. He received a copy of forwarded letter and thus got intimated that his representation was forwarded yet he concealed this fact and sent said reminder dated 21.05.2014. It is also pertinent to mention here that the appeal of petitioner's husband was also rejected by this Hon'ble Court. Copy of the letter no.11672/40-A/Admin(D): Sec: Dated: Allahabad: 19.08.2014 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.2."
Bare perusal of the said instruction, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has not filed any representation dated 21.05.2014, whereas, the same was filed by his husband. Even the same was only a reminder to the representation given by husband of the petitioner on 18.10.2013 for deciding the appeal. It is also reflected that subsequently the said appeal of petitioner's husband was also rejected.
Once the claim of the petitioner has already been considered by the Authority concerned, then there is no reason or occasion to interfere in the matter.
With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.11.2019 A. Pandey