Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 35663 of 2002 Petitioner :- Vinod Singh Sirohi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Bose Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Called in revise. None appeared to press this writ petition. Learned Standing Counsel is present for respondents. In the circumstances, I myself have perused the record.
2. By means of present writ petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:
“i) a writ, or writs, direction or directions and/or order or orders in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 16.12.2000 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Saharanpur, 09.08.2001 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Saharanpur range, Saharanpur and the order dt. 30.01.2002, passed by the Inspector General of Police, Meerut Zone, Meerut, as contained in Annexure No. 1, 2 & 3 respectively.
ii) A writ or writs, direction or directions and/or order or orders in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents hereto from taking into consideration the impugned censure entries while considering the petitioner for future career benefits such as promotion etc., and
iii) a writ or writs, direction or directions and/or order or orders in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents hereto from enforcing the provisions of rule 4(1) (b)(iv) of U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 after declaring the same to be ultra vires of section 7 of the Police Act and beyond the rule making powers of the State Government of U.P. under section 46(2) (c) of the Police Act.”
3. I myself 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 :- 22.2.2019 PS