Allahabad High Court
Shambhu vs Dy. Director Of Consolidation & Others on 8 January, 2010
Author: Bala Krishna Narayana
Bench: Bala Krishna Narayana
Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 55504 of 2002 Petitioner :- Shambhu Respondent :- Dy. Director Of Consolidation & Others Petitioner Counsel :- S.S.P. Gupta,J.A.Azmi Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Anuj Kumar Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.
Heard Sri S.S.P. Gupta, assisted by Sri R.C. Yadav learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Anuj Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 2.9.2002 passed by the respondent no. 1. dismissing Reference No. 19 State Vs. Shambhu.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent no. 1 before passing the impugned order had neither issued any notice to the petitioner nor afforded him any opportunity of hearing and as such the impugned order having been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice is liable to set-aside on that ground alone. He further submitted that as a consequence of the aforesaid order the petitioner has been deprived of his valuable holdings.
Sri Anuj Kumar learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 vehemently submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting any interference by this court. However, he failed to show that the respondent no. 1 before passing the impugned order had heard the petitioner.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
A carefull reading of the order dated 2.9.2002 passed by the respondent no. 1 which undoubtedly carries civil consequences shows that the same was passed without hearing the petitioner. Specific averment has been made by the petitioner in para 6 of the writ petition that the respondent no. 1 before passing the impugned order had neither issued any notice to the petitioner nor afforded him any opportunity of hearing which is uncontroverted. Even otherwise the impugned order also does not reflect any application of mind by the respondent no. 1 to the facts of the case and the material on record. For the aforesaid reason the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the order dated 2.9.2002 passed by the respondent no. 1 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed. The Reference No. 19, State Vs. Shambhu(Annexure-7 to the writ petition) is restored to its original number. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh is directed to decide the reference no. 19 State Vs. Shambhu after hearing the petitioner and all other concerned persons in accordance with law by a speaking and reasoned order as expeditiously as possible preferrably within a period of two months from the date of the production of the certified copy of this order before him.
Order Date :- 8.1.2010 R.C.