JAI NARAYAN CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition although ten prayers are raised, however, Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner, on instruction and on the basis of subsequent events, is pressing only prayers no. 3 and 4, which are reproduced as under:

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that before filing of this petition as well as during pendency of this writ petition, on both above referred issues, matter was traveled upto the Supreme Court and on law decided in favour of similarly situated persons. He relied on paras 4 and 5 of the judgment passed by Supreme Court in State of U.P. and others vs. Putti Lal, (2002) 2 UPLBEC 1595, which are reproduced hereinafter:

(3.) Learned counsel also relied on another judgment of Supreme Court passed in Sabha Shanker Dube vs. Divisional Forest Officer and others, (2019) 12 SCC 297, paras 11, 12 and 13, which are reproduced as under: