Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 133713 (ALL)

SANDEEP KUMAR VERMA v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. P.W.D. LKO. AND 3 OTHERS

WRIA/4057/2025 · 2025-04-15

Karunesh Singh Pawar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20934 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4057 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sandeep Kumar Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. P.W.D. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhir Kumar Misra,Anupam Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4. The petitioner, through this petition, has prayed for the following reliefs: "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 11.03.2025 passed by opposite party no. 3 as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to permit the petitioner to stay in the Government Quarter 2nd/III in the interest of justice. III. Any other writ, order or direction in the nature and manner deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner may also be passed". Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by the impugned order, the allotment of government accommodation to the petitioner has been canceled. This order entails civil consequences and also violates the principles of natural justice/audi alteram partem. No opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner to explain or contest the allegations made against him. He submits that the impugned order is also de hors the provisions of सरककरर ननवकस सथकन (लखनऊ ससथत समसत सकमकनय ननवकस सथकन आबबटन ननयमकवलर, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 1980 Rules) which has been issued pursuant to Rule 25 of the Fundamental Rules. Learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of written instructions, which is taken on record, has submitted that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. Upon a complaint received by one Maya Yadav, resident of Rajkiya Colony Raebareli, the enquiry was conducted by the Circle Officer, Raebareli, who found that the complaint against the petitioner is prima facie substantiated and recommended that if he is allowed to reside in that government premises, another unfortunate incident may occur. It has also been submitted that while making the allotment, the undertaking was given by the petitioner that his allotment can be canceled at any time and he will immediately leave the possession. To this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of the allotment, the petitioner had filled up the already filled-up form and he has no other option but to fill the form otherwise he was not allotted the house. Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the fact that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner. Considering the aforesaid 1980 Rules, particularly proviso 18, which provides that the show cause notice is to be given by the Rajya Sampatti Adhikari before cancellation of the allotment which admittedly has not been given while passing the impugned order. Thus, the impugned order is de hors the provisions of the statutory rules of 1980 which have statutory effect. Also considering the admitted position between the parties that no opportunity of hearing has been provided, no show cause notice has been given to the petitioner as provided in the aforesaid 1980 Rules, the impugned order contained in Annexure-1 cannot be sustained as it is de hors the statutory rules. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the impugned order contained in Annexure-1 dated 11.3.2025 is set aside for the aforesaid reasons. The matter is remanded to the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Raebareli, to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with the 1980 Rules within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is made clear that while passing the fresh order, the authority concerned shall not be prejudiced by any observation made in this order. The order shall be passed on its own merit. Order Date :- 15.4.2025 Madhu D.R/P.S Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench