Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Sunita Yadav v. State Of Up And 2 Others

    Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:101891-DB

    Court No. - 64 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19728 of 2024

    Petitioner :- Sunita Yadav

    Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others

    Counsel for Petitioner :- Prathamesh Upadhyay

    Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

    Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J.

    1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

    2. For getting a certificate to run Hotel Maryada Palace under the Sarais Act, 1867, the petitioner moved an application on 20.07.2022 before the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr. When this application was moved before the District Magistrate the latter had endevoured to get certain verifications done. Accordingly the City Magistrate, and Senior Superintendent of Police were on July 20, 2022 asked to get the verification done. It is the case of the petitioner that infact all the verifications were also got done by the relevant authorities and their reports were also sent to the District Magistrate. Thereafter, it is the case of the petitioner, that when the District Magistrate had not decided the application then again on May 21 May, 2024, the petitioner moved an application before the District Magistrate reminding him of the application he had filed on 20.07.2022.

    3. The grievance of the petitioner thus is that the application dated July 20, 2022, was not being decided by the District Magistrate.

    4. Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner's application dated July 20, 2022 shall

    1

    be considered by the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr on its own merits expeditiously.

    5. Without going into the merits of the case, the court considers it appropriate to direct the respondent No. 2, District Magistrate, Bulandshahr to decide the application of the petitioner dated July 20, 2022 after considering all the inputs that had been provided by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Anupshahr, District Bulandshahr within a period of one month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order, unless there is any legal impediment.

    6. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

    Order Date :- 5.6.2024 vkj

    2

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Sunita Yadav v. State Of Up And 2 Others
    (Jun 5, 2024)