Back
DINESH PATHAK
Mahesh Chand – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
DINESH PATHAK, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the records.
2. Instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, for the following prayer:
(ii) TO ISSUE, a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to directing the Respondent No. 2 to decide the stay/ application as well as Restoration Application dated 28.06.2024 as sent through registered post on 09.07.2024 in Case No. T202401500500769 Pooja Goyal Vs. Mahesh Chand and Others as expeditiously as possible preferably within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.”
3. It is submitted that having been aggrieved with the order dated 10.04.2024 passed by learned Tehsildar (respondent no. 2) under Section 34 of Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, present petitioners have filed restoration application which is pending c
Administrative authorities must register and decide applications expeditiously, providing reasoned decisions to ensure timely justice.
Restoration of appeal allowed due to unopposed application averments.
The court emphasized that parties cannot take advantage of the dismissal of an appeal for want of prosecution and allowed the applications filed by the appellants to restore the status quo ante in th....
Point of Law : Restoration of registration with retrospective effect, the authorities shall see that petitioner may not face any hurdle in filing his returns for the months of August 2021 to March 20....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
