Madhya Pradesh High Court
WP/2185/2024 of AMANI LAL SAHU Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWALON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 2185 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
AMANI LAL SAHU S/O DHANUSLAL SAHU, AGED ABOUT55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED VILLAGE BIJATEHSIL BICHIYA DISTRICT MANDLA (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY SHRI DURGESH KUMAR SINGRORE - ADVOCATE)
.....PETITIONER
AND
1.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGHSECRETARY PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENTVALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)SECRETARY PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENTVALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKSDEPARTMENT, MANDLA DIVISION MANDLA(MADHYA PRADESH)DEPARTMENT, MANDLA DIVISION MANDLA(MADHYA PRADESH)
3.THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PWD ( B AND R)SUB DIVISION BICHHIYA DISTRICT MANDLA(MADHYA PRADESH)SUB DIVISION BICHHIYA DISTRICT MANDLA(MADHYA PRADESH)
4.BHAGWANI LAL SAHU S/O DHANUSLAL SAHU,AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCCUPATION: GOVT JOBR/O VILLAGE BIJA THSIL BICHIYA DISTRICTMANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCCUPATION: GOVT JOBR/O VILLAGE BIJA THSIL BICHIYA DISTRICTMANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SWATI ASEEM GEORGE - DEPUTY GOVERNMENT ADVOCATEFOR THE STATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Petitioner's contention is that he has filed a representation to the Executive Engineer/Public Works Department, Mandla, as contained inAnnexure P-3, and prays for a direction to the concerned authority to decidesaid representation in accordance with law.
Petitioner had already withdrawn W.P. No.21200/2023 vide order dated24.08.2023 before a Coordinate Bench on the ground that after attaining the ageof superannuation he was not entitled to raise a dispute regarding his date ofbirth. Now, no further indulgence can be shown and this appears to be adeliberate attempt to mislead the Court and obtain a relief which is not otherwiseadmissible.
Accordingly, petition is dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)JUDGEMTK