ARVIND KUMAR RAI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel and perused the record.

(2.) WITH the consent of the parties' counsel, the writ petition is finally disposed of at admission stage.

(3.) IN pursuance to the judgment of this Court, the District Magistrate, Ghazipur had considered the petitioner's application and rejected the application by impugned order dated 29.4.2006. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that a report was submitted by the Superintendent of Police and revenue authorities indicating therein the criminal cases which were pending against the petitioner's uncles and father. The report indicates that the family members of the petitioner were involved in serious offences. It appears that the District Magistrate without recording a finding at his end made an endorsement on the said report on 29.4.2006 with the word, "Aswikrit" (refused).