Court No. - 8
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 30318 of 1990 Petitioner :- Subedar Respondent :- Commissioner Counsel for Petitioner :- T.M. Rizvi,Ashok Upadhyay,Ashutosh Upadhyay,Rajiv Misra Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.,Anil Kumar,Satish Chaturvedi
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Heard Sri Ashok Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for respondents No.5 to 9 and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
In the present writ petition, the order passed by the Commissioner, Kanpur Dehat, dated 22.10.1990, in the recovery proceeding is impugned.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued this matter and states that the order passed by the Commissioner concerned dated 22.10.1990 is not correct.
I have perused the said order, specifically paragraph No.4 which states that:-
4- nksuks i{kkas dh cgl lquus ds mijkUr ;g Li"V gks tkrk gS fd vkifRrdRrkZvkas us _.k fy;k Fkk ml _.k dk le;kuqlkj ,oa fof/kor vnk;xh ugha dh xbZA tc olwyh dh dk;Zokgh 'kq: gqbZ rks os VªSDVj ysdj Hkkx x;sA vr% ftyk iz'kklu }kjk vpy lEifRr dh dqdhZ dh xbZ rFkk uhykeh dh xbZA uhykeh esa tks ewY;
vk;k mlds fo:) vkfRrdRrkvkas dks dksbZ vkifRr ugha gSA vkifRrdRrkvksa us uhykeh dh izfdz;k eas dksbZ vfu;ferrk Hkh izekf.kr ugha gqbZA bu ifjfLFkfr;kas esa uhykeh dh izfdz;k eas dksbZ voS/kkfud =qfV ugha dh xbZA vkifRrdRrkvkas fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA dh vkifRr fujLr In view of the above and in my considered opinion, there is nothing illegal in the said order. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed.
No orders as to cost.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states at bar that there is some dispute about excess amount.
Liberty is granted to him to approach before the appropriate authority with the representation and the same may be decided at the earliest.
Order Date :- 30.11.2018 Rishabh