High CourtsSingle Bench(2010) 09 UK CK 0210

Anees Ahmad vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 10 September 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
Brahma Singh Verma, J
CASE NUMBER
Interim Relief Application No. 7736 of 2010 in Writ Petition No. 1596 (M/S) of 2010

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 353 words

B.S. Verma, J.—Heard Mr. M.S. Pal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Tarun P.S. Takuli, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned Counsel for the respondents.

2.

By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed following relief-

I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 3.9.2010 passed by respondent No. 3 on the basis of directions given by respondent No. 2 (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition.

II. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to give effect to the agreement dated 1-10/11-2007, signed between petitioner and respondent No. 2 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition).

III. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 3 to decide the representation dated 4-9-2010 made by petitioner (Annexure No. 4 to this writ petition).

3.

According to the petitioner earlier the shop in question was allotted to his brother Hafees Khan and after the death of his brother respondents executed an agreement for the allotment of the shop/plot in favour of petitioner. The petitioner after execution of agreement started to work in the shop in question in accordance with terms and condition mentioned the agreement and he is depositing all rents and dues regularly to the respondents. Later-on the respondent No. 2 has allotted the shop in question in favour of the petitioner by replacing the name of his elder brother, who was the earlier allottee. He has not violated any licence condition, even then by impugned order the agreement was cancelled without assigning any reason.

4.

Perusal of impugned order dated 3-9-2010, reveals that no reason has been assigned, why the agreement of plot No. 5 was cancelled by the respondent No. 3.

5.

Mr. S.S. Chauhan, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents prays for and is granted six weeks time to file the counter affidavit.

6.

List thereafter.

7.

Till the next date of listing the operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed.

8.

The interim relief application stands disposed of.