ishan Mishra Vs. Madhya Pradesh Housing and Infrasturcture Developmnt Board

ishan Mishra vs Madhya Pradesh Housing and Infrasturcture Developmnt Board

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Oct 07, 2013

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1093371

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1093371
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Oct 07, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

ishan Mishra

Advocate Shri. Sanjayram Tamrakar

Respondent

Madhya Pradesh Housing and Infrasturcture Developmnt Board

Excerpt

.....no.4 may kindly be directed to take action against the erring officer who were involved in forged sale deed; (d) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, respondent no.3 may kindly be directed to cancel the building permission in favour of respondent no.9 and 10; (e) any other relief which this hon’ble court deems fit may kindly be awarded in the facts and circumstances of the case including costs .” case of the petitioner is that the respondent no.7 to 10 have not constructed their houses as per the plan prepared by the respondent no.2, and have raised construction at an area which was required to be kept open by them. it is submitted that this petition 2 may be entertained and the aforesaid reliefs may be granted to the petitioner. for redressal of the grievance, petitioner can approach to respondent no.3 who is the appropriate authority to look into the aforesaid grievance. if any such grievance is raised by the petitioner by filing a duly constituted representation supported by necessary documents, respondent no.3 shall look into the grievance of the petitioner, after extending due opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties. in view of aforesaid, this petition is not entertained, and is disposed of finally with the following directions: “(i) petitioner may submit a representation to respondent no.3 agitating his grievance supported by necessary documents and a copy of this petition for the ready reference of respondent no.3; (ii) if any such prayer is made by the petitioner to respondent no.3, the respondent no.3 shall look into the grievance of the petitioner, and after hearing the affected parties shall decide the matter expeditiously, as far as possible within a period of four months from the date of filing of such representation.” no order as to costs. (krishn kumar lahoti) (subhash kakade) acting chief justice judge. jk.

Full Judgment

1 WP No.16382/13 (PIL) 07.10.2013.

Shri Sanjayram Tamrakar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned Addl.AG for the respondents No.4,5 and 6.

The petitioner has sought the following reliefs :- “(a).To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, respondent no.9 and 10 may kindly be restrained to raise the construction over the open space of the colony; (b) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, respondent no.5 and 6 may kindly be directed to enquire into the matter in respect to forgery committed by respondent No.7 to 10; (c) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, respondent No.4 may kindly be directed to take action against the erring officer who were involved in forged sale deed; (d) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, respondent no.3 may kindly be directed to cancel the building permission in favour of respondent No.9 and 10; (e) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit may kindly be awarded in the facts and circumstances of the case including costs .” Case of the petitioner is that the respondent No.7 to 10 have not constructed their houses as per the plan prepared by the respondent no.2, and have raised construction at an area which was required to be kept open by them.

It is submitted that this petition 2 may be entertained and the aforesaid reliefs may be granted to the petitioner.

For redressal of the grievance, petitioner can approach to respondent no.3 who is the appropriate authority to look into the aforesaid grievance.

If any such grievance is raised by the petitioner by filing a duly constituted representation supported by necessary documents, respondent no.3 shall look into the grievance of the petitioner, after extending due opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties.

In view of aforesaid, this petition is not entertained, and is disposed of finally with the following directions: “(i) Petitioner may submit a representation to respondent no.3 agitating his grievance supported by necessary documents and a copy of this petition for the ready reference of respondent no.3; (ii) If any such prayer is made by the petitioner to respondent no.3, the respondent no.3 shall look into the grievance of the petitioner, and after hearing the affected parties shall decide the matter expeditiously, as far as possible within a period of four months from the date of filing of such representation.” No order as to costs.

(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Subhash Kakade) Acting Chief Justice Judge.

Jk.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties ishan Mishra vs Madhya Pradesh Housing and Infrasturcture Dev... Same Subject Education