REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

HAJI MANZOOR AHMED Appellant

V/S

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

RIDGE V. BALDWIN [REFERRED TO]
VINOD CHANDRA MAHESHWARI V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWAT PRASAD V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
NAND-RAM HUNRAM, CALCUTTA V. UNION, OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
EXPRESS NEWSPAPER PRIVATE LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
HARINAGAR SUGAR MILLS LIMITED VS. SHYAM SUNDER JHUNJHUNWALA [REFERRED TO]
JASWANT SUGAR MILLS LIMITED MEERUT VS. LAKSHMI CHAND [REFERRED TO]
SARDAR GOVINDRAO VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANY LIMITED VS. P N SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
LALA SHRI BHAGWAN VS. RAM CHAND [REFERRED TO]
MADHYA PRADESH INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADRAS VS. A R SRINIVASAN [REFERRED TO]
M PADMANABHA SETTY VS. K P PAPLAH SETTY [REFERRED TO]
BHAGAT RAJA IN BOTH THE APPEALS VS. UNION OF INDIA IN BOTH THE APPEALS [REFERRED TO]
SHEO KUMAR DWIVEDI VS. THAKURJI MAHARAJ BRIJMAN [REFERRED TO]
MURLIDHAR VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
K L SAHGAL VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
GYAN CHAND BHATIA VS. RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION OFFICER [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question referred to us reads:

(2.) THE relevant and of the case are:-necessary facts The petitioners, Hajl Manzoor Ahmad and Dr. Maqbool Ahmad, are the land lords of premises No. CK 66/3 situate in Mohalla Benia Bagh, in the city of Vara nasi. The respondents Nos. 4 to 7, that is, Sarvasri Sher Andil Khan, Moghal Khan, Abdullah Khan and Mannan Khan, are the tenants in possession of the pre mises aforesaid (hereinafter referred to as the premises). The respondents Nos. I to 3 are the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Vara-nasi and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Varanasi.

(3.) THE petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Con stitution of India and have prayed that the order of the State Government be quashed. The main ground that was urged before the learned single Judge at the time of the hearing of the instant writ petition was that the State Govern ment was bound to pass a reasoned order and inasmuch as annexure 'G' to the writ petition does not contain the reasons, the order of the State Government is liable to be quashed.

Click here to view full judgment.

HAJI MANZOOR AHMED Vs. STATE OF U P

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address