CHANDRA BHUSHAN PANDEY Vs. NARAIN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ashok Pande, learned counsel for review petitioner and Sri J.N. Mathur, learned Additional Advocate General, State of Uttar Pradesh.

(2.) Facts of the present case are that review petitioner, Sri Chandra Bhushan Pandey, initially approached this Court by filling a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and the reliefs claimed by him petitioner in the Writ Petition No. 7770 (MB) of 2011 ( Chandra Bhushan Pandey Vs. Sri Narain Singh and others) are quoted hereinbelow:-

(3.) By order dated 30.08.2011, the above noted writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner is not a "person aggrieved" in regard to subject matter involved in the instant case, hence , he has no locus standi to file the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the observation that "Sri J.N. Mathur, learned Additional Advocate General, State of U.P. has very fairly submitted that he will look into the matter and bring it to the notice of respondents no. 1 and 2 to take appropriate action, if the same is correct. We hope and trust on the submission made by Sri Mathur, who will use his office to do the needful."