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

1993 Supreme(MP) 560

GULAB C.GUPTA, R.P.AWASTHY
Chintamani Chandra Mohan Agarwal . . . – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent


ORDER

Gulab C. Gupta, J.

1. The petitioners are tenants of respondent No. 2, a Wakf registered under the Wakf Act, 1954 and feel aggrieved by the Notification dated 7-9-1989 published in Madhya Pradesh Rajpatra of the said date, issued by the respondent No. 1 under Section 3(2) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) ; and challenge the constitutional validity thereof by filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

2. We must at the very outset regret the non-availability of any help in deciding this writ petition by the respondents. The petition was admitted as long back as on 1-8-1991 and thereafter the respondents were served notices. They were represented by Addl. Advocate General. The respondents have neither filed any return nor have appeared on the last date of hearing when the matter was fixed for final hearing. This Court was informed that since the Advocates of the High Court are boycotting this Court, the office of the Advocate General is also not able to attend the hearing. This court knows no reason why the office of the Advocate General should boycott the Court. The Office of the Advocate General has a status of it











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