AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. S.B. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.5.
This writ petition styled as a Public Interest Litigation is filed with the following prayers :
“10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records pertaining to the case of Petitioner for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.
10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to make the Rule for unauthorized elements who used the illegal banner and poster upon the Government property and they should be punished and penalized for their unauthorized activities.
10.3 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to remove all the unauthorized banners, posters and hoardings from Government property within stipulated time and not to repeat the same activities upon the Government property and to comply the specific Rule for their advertisement.
10.4 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to make a particular rule for penalized the concerned in charge for embezzlement (if any) for making the State neat and clean.
10.5 Any other relief, which may be deemed, fit by this Hon'ble Court just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided in favour of the Petitioner.”
It appears from the materials on record that a representation, addressed to the Chief Secretary on 18.07.2022, was sent by way of registered post.
On the last date, when the matter was placed before this Court on 06.09.2022, this Court requested Mr. Pradhan to ascertain as to whether the representation dated 18.07.2022 had been received by the Chief Secretary.
Today, Mr. Pradhan submits that representation was received on 21.07.2022 and as the issue flagged by the petitioner pertains to the Department of Urban Administration and Development Department, the same was forwarded to the Secretary of the said Department by the Chief Secretary.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the prayers made in the writ petition, we are of the considered opinion that it will be appropriate for the authorities to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner and to take such decision, as may be considered appropriate.
Ordered accordingly.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. We must place on record that we have expressed no opinion on the contentions urged in the representation as well as on the present petition.
Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach this Court again, if the occasion arises in future.