Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 98372 (ALL)

GOVERDHAN ARYA v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

WRIC/33344/2025 · 2025-09-21

Amitabh Kumar Rai, Saral Srivastava

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 33344 of 2025 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Considering the orders to be passed in the present petition, this Court does not propose to invite counter affidavit. 3. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 08.08.2025 passed by the respondent no.3, has preferred the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that by the impugned order the respondent no.3 has directed the Society namely, 'Panchsheel Cooperatives Housing Society Limited, Bareilly' to remove the petitioner from the post of Secretary. It is contended that the impugned order is punitive in nature and has been passed in utter disregard to the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the petitioner was not given any notice and opportunity of hearing by the respondent no.3 before passing the impugned order nor has been supplied the enquiry report which has been relied upon by the respondent no.3 against the petitioner before passing the impugned order. In this respect, petitioner has made necessary averments in paragraph nos.19 to 21 of the writ petition. Accordingly, it is submitted that impugned order cannot be sustained in law. 5. Learned Standing Counsel would contend that the impugned order is running into five pages and respondent no.3 has considered each aspect of the matter and after having been found that petitioner has not acted in the interest of the Society, the respondent no.3 has rightly passed the impugned Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : P.H. Vashishtha, Raunak Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Goverdhan Arya .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) order. 6. Be that as it may, the petitioner claims to be 'Secretary' of the Society namely, 'Panchsheel Cooperatives Housing Society Limited, Bareilly'. The impugned order has been passed by the respondent no.3 directing the Society to remove the petitioner from the post of Secretary. The impugned order is punitive in nature, and therefore, respondent no.3 before passing the impugned order should have adhered to the principles of natural justice. 7. We have perused the impugned order and we find that impugned order does not contain even an iota of reply of the petitioner which reflects that impugned order has been passed without giving any notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The impugned order further reveals that the enquiry report which has been relied upon by the respondent no.3 against the petitioner was not supplied to the petitioner. 8. In such view of the fact, we dispose off the writ petition permitting the petitioner to file a detailed representation before the respondent no.3- Additional Housing Commissioner/Additional Registrar, Uttar Pradesh Housing & Development Council (Cooperative Section), Lucknow, U.P. against the impugned order within a period of one month from today. On submitting the representation, the respondent no.3 shall proceed to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after supplying all the materials which the respondent no.3 wishes to rely upon against the petitioner within a period of two months thereafter. 9. For a period of three months or till the disposal of representation of petitioner by the respondent no.3, whichever is earlier, the Society will not proceed to pass any resolution against the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned order dated 08.08.2025. 10. The impugned order dated 08.08.2025 shall abide by the orders to be passed by the respondent no.3 on the representation of the petitioner. 11. It is made clear that if there is any concealment of fact by the petitioner in obtaining the present order, the respondents shall have the liberty to file recall application to recall the said order. September 22, 2025 Sattyarth WRIC No. 33344 of 2025 2 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SATTYARTH ANAND High Court of Judicature at Allahabad