Allahabad High Court
Umesh Chand Jain vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 17 December, 2020
Bench: Sunita Agarwal, Jayant Banerji
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16016 of 2020 Petitioner :- Umesh Chand Jain Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant Kumar Singh,Indra Jit Singh,Sr. Advocate O.P. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Raj Kishor Pandey,Raj Kishore Pandey,Sant Ram Sharma,Satya Prakash Pandey Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Heard Shri O.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Krishna Kumar Chaubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rakesh Pandey, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Satya Prakash Pandey and Raj Kishore Pandey, learned counsels for the respondent nos.4.
The petitioner herein is a tenant of a shop located inside the premises of a temple known as Thakur Radha Kishan Ji Mandir, Mohalla Mardan Naka Purani Bajaji, Banda. Respondent no.4 is stated to be the Secretary of the Trust of the temple in question. By means of the order impugned, the objection filed by the petitioner against the notice dated 2.11.2019 has been rejected stating therein that the petitioner has no locus to challenge the said notice.
Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a tenant of the shop situated in the temple which has been sealed by the Municipal Authorities without under taking due process of law.
We may note that the temple's owner that is the Trust which runs and manages the temple is not before us. The notice dated 2.11.2019 was issued to the trust through the Secretary, Shree Thakur Radhakrishna Mandir Charitable Trust, Mardan Naka, Purani Bajaji, Banda. The reply to the said notice or the objections, if any, would have been filed by the Secretary of the Trust, which fact is not before us.
Further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on an earlier point of time, the petitioner has come up before this Court to challenge the notice dated 2.11.2019 and a liberty was given to him to file his objections before the Nagar Palika Parishad, Banda. His objections, therefore, cannot be decided as not maintainable. The said fact would not change the status of the petitioner being a tenant of the shop in the premises in question. We may further note that the proceeding under Section 263 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 has been taken by the Nagar Palika Parishad, Banda noticing the fact that the temple premises is in dilapidated condition and is damaged and it was the Secretary of the Trust who has been called upon by notice dated 2.11.2019 to reply as to why this temple be not declared unusable.
The respondent no.4, the Trust, is represented by Shri Rakesh Pandey, learned Senior Advocate.
Be that as it may, having noticed the fact that the petitioner herein is only a tenant of the shop in question located inside the Mandir premises and the Secretary of the Trust, which runs and manages the Mandir, is answerable to the said notice, we do not find any good ground to entertain the challenge to the order of rejection of the objections of the petitioner.
The writ petition is found devoid of merit and, hence, dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.12.2020 SK