BHAGIRATHI MAURYA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. Heard Mr. Nagendra B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rakesh Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. As the prayer of the petitioner is innocuous, issuance of notice to the opposite party No. 4 is dispensed with. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application has been moved before the competent authority, on which an endorsement made by the District Magistrate and after endorsement, it has been sent to the District Panchayat Raj Officer, opposite party No. 3. According to him, it is pending disposal. After arguing the matter at length, learned counsel for the petitioner says that he does not want to press the reliefs claimed in the writ petition but restricts his prayer only to the extent that the application, which is pending before the District Panchayat Raj Officer, contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition, may be decided, to which learned Standing Counsel has no objection. In view of above, the writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to the opposite party No. 3/district Panchayat Raj Officer, Pratapgarh to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner, contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition, latest by 31. 1. 2009, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the affected parties. .