Mohd. Yunus vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, due to typing mistake, State of Uttar Pradesh, which is arrayed as respondent no. 5 in the Writ

Petition, has been wrongly transcribed as State of Uttarakhand. He seeks leave of the Court to amend the description of respondent no. 5 as given in

the array of parties. Leave granted. Petitioner’s counsel shall supply amended memo of parties in the Registry during the course of the day.

Grievance of the petitioner, as canvassed in the Writ Petition is that, despite repeated representations, his prayer for grant of lease in respect of a

piece of land, over which he is running a shop, is not being considered by the respondent authorities.

After arguing for a while, learned counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer and submits that petitioner may be permitted to make fresh

representation to Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, who may be directed to take decision in the matter at the earliest.

Learned counsel for the respondents submit that they have no objection if such a direction is issued.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to make fresh representation to Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government

of Uttar Pradesh, within two weeks from today. If such representation is made within the stipulated period, the Secretary, Irrigation Department,

Government of Uttar Pradesh shall look into the matter and take appropriate decision, in accordance with law, as early as possible; but, not later than

twelve weeks from the date of receipt of representation alongwith certified copy of this order.