SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(All) 1037

S.DIKSHIT
VIRENDRA NATH RAI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
P.C.AGRAWAL, R.S.Pandey

S. DIKSHIT, J.

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

( 2 ) LEARNED Standing Counsel has no objection if this writ petition is disposed of finally at this stage.

( 3 ) THE petitioner was working as Junior Engineer in Tubewell Sub-Division-I, Faizabad in the year 1984 and continued to work there as such till September, 1993. A contract was awarded in favour of Contracter Hansraj Yadav with respect to transportation of P. V. C. pipes from Central stores Faizabad to Tubewell) No. 56 T. G. Village Muhin uddinpur, Tanda, Faizabad. It has been averred in the writ petition that the contractor accordingly transported the P. V. C. pipes to the agreed destination up to 3-6-1993 and the petitioner is said to have verified the receipt of the requisite quantity of P. V. C, pipes on 10-6-1983. Petitioner has stated that this fact was recorded in the measurement bock by him on 10-6-93. There was no store according to the petitioner at the place to keep the P. V. C. pipes safely therefore, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Assistant engineer, Tubewell Division-I on 12-6-1993 requesting for appointment of a Chowkidar immediately or entrust the work of laying down of the pipes to the contra





Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top