Allahabad High Court
Rajesh Kumar Gupta @ Tuna vs District Magistrate Ballia And 6 Others on 19 September, 2019
Author: Yashwant Varma
Bench: Yashwant Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29907 of 2019 Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Gupta @ Tuna Respondent :- District Magistrate Ballia And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rishabh Kumar,Abhishek Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Satendra Pratap Singh,Sunil Kumar Dubey Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents, Sri Mishra, who has appeared for the resondents 3 to 6 as well as Sri Satendra Pratap Singh who has appeared for the respondent No. 7.
This petition impugns the orders dated 21 August 2019 passed by the Tehsildar Ballia as also the order of 30 August 2019 passed by the District Magistrate, Ballia on an appeal preferred under Section 160 of the U.P. Municipal Corporations Act, 1959. Insofar as the statutory appeal is concerned that was preferred against an order dated 10 November 2017 effecting mutation in favour of the petitioner. On that appeal which was preferred, with delay, the District Magistrate has passed an interlocutory order for the preservation of the status quo. The challenge to this order is based on the contention that it could not have been passed unless the application for condonation of delay had been disposed of. According to the learned counsel since the principles underlying the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 apply the appeal was incompetent and could not have been entertained or interlocutory order passed till such time as the delay was condoned and appeal registered. The challenge to the order passed by the Tehsildar rests on the contention that on a mere application, an order which virtually amounts to the grant of injunction has come to be passed without any formal proceedings having either been drawn or registered.
Insofar as the order passed by the Tehsildar is concerned, the Court finds itself unable to countenance the same since the order which purports to be one of injunction is not established to have been passed in exercise of any statutory powers nor was it passed upon registration of any formal proceedings. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent concedes to the aforesaid position. In view thereof, the order of 21 August 2019 clearly merits being set aside.
Insofar as the order of 30 August 2019 is concerned, the Court notes that the submission of challenge which is addressed in that respect is based on principles which underly the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Those provisions cannot have any application to appeals which are preferred under the provisions of Section 160 of the 1959 Act. More fundamentally, the Court notes the prima facie recordal of facts by the District Magistrate which constrained him to pass orders to preserve and maintain the status quo. In view of the aforesaid, the Court finds no ground to interfere with that order at this stage leaving it open for the respective parties to raise such further contentions on merits, as may be available.
Accordingly and for the reasons aforenoted, this writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 21 August 2019 is hereby quashed and set aside.
While the Court refuses to interfere with the order dated 30 August 2019, bearing in mind the nature of challenge which is raised the competent authority is directed to decide the appeal with expedition and with due notice to respective parties and in any case within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 19.9.2019 Arun K. Singh (Yashwant Varma, J.)