ASHOK BHUSHAN, ARUN TANDON
ARUN KUMAR UPADHAYA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U P – Respondent
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Neeraj Upadhaya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding respondent No. 2 (District Magistrate, Kashiram Nagar) to decide the matter afresh. A further prayer has also been made for quashing the order dated 23rd January, 2009 passed by the District Magistrate, Kashiram Nagar.
3. Brief facts necessary for deciding the writ petition are; the petitioner claims to be Secretary of Nishulk Vidhik Sahayata (Legal Aid) Samiti, 50 Arun Nagar, Etah. The petitioner claims that Nishulk Vidhik Sahayata Samiti (hereinafter referred to as the Samiti) has been authorised by the U. P State Legal Services Authority vide its letter dated 14th March, 2005. The petitioners case is that petitioner had given a representation to the District Magistrate, Kashiram Nagar to refer compoundable offences/cases, which are to be decided at pre-litigation stage. The Additional District Magistrate, Kashiram Nagar passed an order dated 22nd January, 2009 directing the subordinate officers to refer compoundable cases to the Samiti. The District
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.