Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Nishant Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Nishant vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Apr 15, 2013
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1046110

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Nishant

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

writ petition no.6101/2013 15/04/2013 shri a.k.pandey, advocate for the petitioner. this public interest litigation (pil) has been filed by the petitioner for seeking directions to the respondents to correct or cancel the bpl & apl list of ward no.20 of municipal corporation, rewa (mp).on the ground that name of various persons have been wrongly recorded in the said list, who are not eligible to be recorded in the said list. in the petition, we find that the petition is based on newspaper cutting and the petitioner has not done any exercise in this regard. in the aforesaid circumstances, at present we are of the view that petitioner may raise this grievance by filing a representation to respondent no.2- the commissioner, municipal corporation, rewa. if any such representation is made by the petitioner to respondent no.2, respondent no.2 shall looked into the grievance of the petitioner and to do needful in accordance with law. with the aforesaid direction, this petition is disposed of. no order as to cost. (krishn kumar lahoti) (smt.vimla jain) acting chief justice judge manju

Full Judgment

Writ Petition No.6101/2013 15/04/2013 Shri A.K.pandey, Advocate for the petitioner.

This Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed by the petitioner for seeking directions to the respondents to correct or cancel the BPL & APL list of ward No.20 of Municipal Corporation, Rewa (MP).on the ground that name of various persons have been wrongly recorded in the said list, who are not eligible to be recorded in the said list.

In the petition, we find that the petition is based on Newspaper cutting and the petitioner has not done any exercise in this regard.

In the aforesaid circumstances, at present we are of the view that petitioner may raise this grievance by filing a representation to respondent no.2- The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Rewa.

If any such representation is made by the petitioner to respondent no.2, respondent no.2 shall looked into the grievance of the petitioner and to do needful in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid direction, this petition is disposed of.

No order as to cost.

(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) Acting Chief Justice JUDGE manju

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial