Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hari Narayan Manjhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 January, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP-1279-2018
(HARI NARAYAN MANJHI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 17-01-2018
Shri S.P. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri S.M. Lal, learned G.A. for the State.
Heard on the question of admission.
The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order
sh
dated 02.01.2018 Annexure P/1 by which the respondent/authority
has directed the petitioner to vacate the Government Quarter I-5 e ad that was allotted to him at Umariya District Umariya. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned Pr order has been passed by the authority stating that the petitioner a has used the accommodation allotted to him for some other hy purpose which is factually incorrect. It is submitted that the ad accommodation allotted to the petitioner is in his possession but he had permitted one Gajanand Baiga who is working in the M Mineral Department at Umariya to stay in the house temporarily till of a quarter was allotted to him.
It is submitted that the petitioner had permitted Gajanand Baiga to rt occupy the accommodation on humanitarian ground and in such ou circumstances, the impugned order dated 02.01.2018 directing C him to vacate the premises on this ground is patently illegal and erroneous and deserves to be set aside. h ig We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused H the documents.
From a perusal of the record specifically the statements of the petitioner as well as Gajanand Baiga and the report of the Tahsildar, it is an admitted and undisputed fact that Gajanand Baiga is occupying the house allotted to the petitioner since June, 2017. Apparently, the petitioner had no right to permit another government servant to occupy the quarter nor has the petitioner produced any document to indicate that the petitioner had obtained permission of the concerned authority before doing so. In the circumstances, we do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order dated 02.01.2018 specifically in view of the fact that the petitioner has admitted the fact that he has permitted Gajanand Baiga to occupy the quarter in question and the said Gajanand Baiga is in occupation of the same since June, 2017. At this state, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to get the accommodation vacated and submit an affidavit before the authority to the effect that he shall not commit any such illegality in future and on this ground this court should interfere in the impugned order. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on this issue as sh well, we are of the considered opinion that these are issues that e may be considered only by the competent authority and cannot be ad considered by us specifically when it is an admitted fact that the Pr petitioner has permitted another government servant to occupy the government quarter allotted to him.
a In the circumstances, while we dismiss the petition filed by the hy petitioner as far as challenge to the impugned order dated ad 02.01.2018 is concerned, however, we grant liberty to the M petitioner, if so advised, to approach the respondent/authority in respect of the statement and undertaking given by him before this of court and it would be for the authority concerned to consider the rt same in accordance with law, in case the petitioner does so. In case the petitioner does so within two weeks, the authority may ou consider his prayer of permitting him to retain the quarter till a C decision is taken in the matter. h With the aforesaid liberty/observation, the petition filed by the ig petitioner is accordingly dismissed.
H
(RAVI SHANKAR JHA) (NANDITA DUBEY)
JUDGE JUDGE
MSP
Digitally signed by MANVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR
Date: 2018.01.18 15:16:37 +05'30'