Anurag Varshney vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others
2019 Latest Caselaw 2943 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 32
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13073 of 2019
 

 
Petitioner :- Anurag Varshney
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Srivastava,Manoj Kumar Srivastava,Ram Bahadur
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Agarwal
 

 
Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J.

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the principal prayer to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to compel the petitioner to vacate the factory premises i.e. M/S Shri Shankar Ispat Pvt Ltd Kasimpur Road Aligarh followed by the prayer to direct the respondents 2,34 and 5 not to disturb the functioning of the M/S Shri Shan ker Ispat PVt Ltd.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel

It is stated by Pankaj Agrawal learned counsel for the respondent no 6 that the petitioner has already filed an Original Suit for permanent injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 but the application for injunction was rejected . The petitioner has not filed any appeal against the order of rejection.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that when the respondent no 2 started interfering in the possession of the petitioner complaint was filed. According to the parties, both sides have filed FIRs agianst each other.

It is admtited position that in the civil suit injunction application was filed which was rejected by the court below agianst which the petitioenr has not filed any appeal..

In view of the above, it is not a fit case for interference.

It would be open for the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

The petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of the above.

Needless tosay, the law will take its own course.

Order Date :- 15.4.2019

MH