MUNSHI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 31.5.2001 passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision No. 91 of 1998-99 (Sita Ram v. L.M.C.). I have heard Sri K.A. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Sri R.G. Prasad, learned counsel for the contesting respondent No. 6.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order impugned is faulty for the following reasons :

(3.) Refuting the submission, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.G. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6 has submitted that the allotment was made totally in disregard to the procedure given under the Act and in derogation of the preferential category as given under Section 198 of the Act. He has also submitted that a suit for declaration has already been filed which is pending therefore no infirmity can be attached with the order impugned in the writ petition.