Vijay Bahadur vs State of U. P. - 2023 Supreme(All) 494

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 494

SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Vijay Bahadur – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Vinod Kumar Shukla.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3.

2. The instant petition has been preferred against the notice dated 20.05.2022 under Section 67(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 issued by the respondent no.3.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel submits that the instant petition is not maintainable which impugned by the notice dated 20.05.2022 itself and the notice cannot be challenged when the same has already been replied by way of filing objection on dated 03.01.2023.

4. By perusal of the records, it appears that the petitioner submitted his objection before the respondent no.3 on dated 03.01.2023 in reply to the notice dated 20.05.2022 and the same is still pending to be adjudicated.

5. Without receiving any decision over the objection as preferred by the petitioner, the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been instituted in much haste and mere notice cannot be set aside only on the behest of objection filed and the same is still pending to be adjudicated before the Competent Authority.

6. In view thereof, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document