Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:5320-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1113 of 2024 Appellant :- Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nizamabad, District Azamgarh Respondent :- State of U.P. and 5 others Counsel for Appellant :- Radha Kant Ojha, Sr. Advocate, Saurabh Kumar Pandey, Shivendu Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- Rajiv Singh (S.C.), Amrendra Tiwari, Azaz Ahmad, Santosh Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Arun Bhansali, Chief Justice Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar, J. 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 11.12.2024 passed in Writ-C No. 14257 of 2024. 2. The writ petition was filed by respondent no.6 challenging the notice dated 25.03.2024 issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nizamabad, District Azamgarh (the appellant) to respondent no.6, stating therein that she was illegally occupying the house situated at Gata No. 860, Village Tahbarpur, District Azamgarh and requiring her to vacate the premises. 3. Apparently on 03.04.2024, possession of the disputed shop was taken from respondent no.6 by the revenue team. By order dated 01.05.2024, the Sub Divisional Magistrate was required to file his personal affidavit explaining how such an order has been passed and operation of the notice dated 25.03.2024 was ordered to remain stayed. 4. The appellant filed his personal affidavit, indicating that he was complying with the directions of the higher authorities. 5. The learned Single Judge, while adjudicating the dispute between the parties by order dated 11.11.2024, came to the conclusion that the appellant has violated law of land as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and has deliberately interfered with the rights of respondent no.6 and called upon the appellant, to remain present before the Court and explain why the matter be not referred to the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh for taking action in accordance with law. It was further ordered that the possession of the shop/house in dispute be restored back to respondent no.6. 6. The appellant filed his response to the show cause ordered to be issued on 11.11.2024. After hearing the parties, the order dated 11.12.2024, impugned herein, was passed by learned Single Judge inter-alia coming to the conclusion that in the affidavit, except for tendering an apology, nothing new has been stated by the deponent and therefore, ordered that the matter be placed before the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow along with record of the case for appropriate action. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant attempted to make submissions with reference to the affidavit filed and the material placed on record that the action of the appellant, was essentially on account of the previous orders passed by the higher authorities and the fact that the subsequent material i.e. the report of the Lekhpal and the pendency of the civil suit were not brought to his notice and as the officer is a newly recruited officer of Batch 2022 only, as he has tendered his apology and apparently no mala fides are involved, the learned Single Judge was not justified in ordering for referring the matter to the Chief Secretary for taking appropriate action. 8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.6 supported the order impugned. 9. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 10. The learned Single Judge, by his order dated 11.11.2024, came to a conclusion pertaining to the material available on record and required the appellant to appear and respond to the notice. The appellant indicated the circumstances in which the order was passed and sought apology. The learned Single Judge thereafter, has not recorded any finding pertaining to the conduct of the appellant and has simply referred the matter to the Chief Secretary for taking appropriate decision in the matter considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case. 11. In view of the fact that learned Single Judge, has not recorded any finding pertaining to the conduct of the appellant, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge wherein matter has only been referred to the Chief Secretary to take appropriate decision in the matter after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case. 12. An apprehension has been expressed that as in order dated 11.11.2024, certain observations have been made, the referring of the matter to the Chief Secretary to take appropriate decision would be an empty formality. 13. We make it clear that the Chief Secretary, would not be influenced by the observations made in order dated 11.11.2024 and take an independent decision based on the facts and circumstances, as are placed before him based on the record of the case, which takes care of the apprehension expressed by counsel for the appellant. 14. With the above observations, the appeal stands disposed of. Order Date :- 10.1.2025 Sandeep/AHA (Vikas Budhwar, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad