Allahabad High Court
Devendra Rai vs Estate Officer Lic Of India Dehradun ... on 22 October, 2020
Bench: Ritu Raj Awasthi, Saroj Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 2 Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 17879 of 2020 Petitioner :- Devendra Rai Respondent :- Estate Officer Lic Of India Dehradun (Uttrakhand) And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Kushwaha,Ajay Kumar Shukla,K.K. Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjeev Singh Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J.
Notice on behalf of opposite party no. 1 has been accepted by Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Advocate whereas notice for opposite parties no. 2 and 3 has been accepted by the Office of learned Chief Standing Counsel.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing Notice of demand being RC prapatr-36 (Rule 143(3)) being Annexure No.2, issued pursuant to Recovery Certificate arising out of Judgment and Order dated 14/03/2009 passed by the Estate Officer, LIC of India, North Central Zone, Dehradun.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite party not to recover the amount in pursuance of the impugned judgment and order dated 14/03/2009 passed by the Estate Officer, LIC of India, North Central Zone, Dehradun."
Learned counsel for opposite party no. 1, on the basis of instructions, submits that the petitioner had preferred an appeal against the order passed in the proceedings under Section 7 Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 which was registered as MCA No. 30/2009. The said appeal was dismissed for non prosecution vide order dated 1.8.2009, the same has not been challenged. The petitioner has not disclosed these relevant facts. The writ petition in the given facts and circumstances is liable to be dismissed.
Mr. K.K. Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner has not been able to satisfy the Court as to how the writ petition in the given facts and circumstances is maintainable, particularly when the impugned order passed in the proceedings under Section 7 of the Act has been confirmed and the appeal preferred against the said order has been dismissed. He has also not been able to explain as to why he has not mentioned the relevant facts regarding filing of appeal as noted above.
In view of above, the writ petition is dismissed. However, we refrain ourselves from imposing any cost.
Order Date :- 22.10.2020 Santosh/-