Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 13 (ALL)

ANIL KUMAR v. NIYAT PRADHIKARI CHANDAUSI

2004-01-06

S.P.MEHROTRA

body2004
S. P. MEHROTRA, J. Shri S. C. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri P. K. Singhal, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 are present. 2. In view of the office report dated 11-12-2003, service of notice on respondent Nos. 3 and 4/1 to 4/8 is held to be sufficient. It may be mentioned that respondent Nos. 4/1 to 4/8 have been impleaded as proforma-respondents in the writ petition. 3. Shri S. C. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri P. K. Singhal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 are agreed that the writ petition may be disposed of. 4. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia praying for quashing the order dated 16-10-2003 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition ). 5. The dispute relates to a shop, the details whereof are given in the release application referred to hereinafter. The said shop has hereinafter been referred to as "the disputed shop". 6. From a perusal of the averments made in the writ petition and the annexures thereto, it appears that Ashok Kumar (respondent No. 2 herein) filed a release application under Section 21 (1) (b) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (in short "the Act") for the release of the disputed shop against Ram Kishore (predecessor-in- interest of the respondent Nos. 4/1 to 4/8 herein) and Pankaj Kumar (respondent No. 3 herein ). 7. The said release application was registered as P. A. Case No. 9 of 1997. 8. Copy of the said release application has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. 9. It further appears that the said Ram Kishore and Pankaj Kumar contested the said release application and filed their written statement, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. 10. It further appears that during the pendency of the said P. A. Case No. 9 of 1997, the said Ram Kishore died, and the respondent Nos. 4/1 to 4/8 herein were brought on record as the heirs and legal representatives of the said Ram Kishore. 11. During the pendency of the said P. A. Case No. 9 of 1997, the petitioner filed an application dated 9- 9-2003 (No. 77 Ga), inter alia , praying for being impleaded as the opposite party in the said P. A. Case No. 9 of 1997. 11. During the pendency of the said P. A. Case No. 9 of 1997, the petitioner filed an application dated 9- 9-2003 (No. 77 Ga), inter alia , praying for being impleaded as the opposite party in the said P. A. Case No. 9 of 1997. Copy of the said impleadment application has been filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. 12. An affidavit sworn on 9-9-2003 was also filed by the petitioner in support of the said impleadment application. Copy of the said affidavit has been filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. 13. It further appears that the respondent No. 2 herein (Ashok Kumar) filed objections (paper No. 79 Ga) against the said impleadment application filed by the petitioner. 14. By the order dated 16-10-2003 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), the said impleadment application (paper No. 77 Ga) filed by the petitioner was rejected. 15. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 16. I have heard Shri S. C. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri P. K. Singhal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 17. Shri P. K. Singhal, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 states that in order to avoid further delay in the matter, the prayer made by the petitioner for being impleaded as opposite party in the said P. A. Case No. 9 of 1997 be granted, and the Prescribed Authority, Chandausi be directed to decide the said P. A. Case No. 9 of 1997 within a specified period. 18. In view of the statement made by Shri P. K. Singhal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, the present writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order dated 16-10-2003 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) is quashed without going into the merits of the said order. It is further directed that the petitioner will be impleaded as one of the opposite parties in the said P. A. Case No. 9 of 1997 within a period of two weeks of the filing of a certified copy of this order before the Prescribed Authority, Chandausi by any of the parties in the present writ petition. 19. It is further directed that the petitioner will be impleaded as one of the opposite parties in the said P. A. Case No. 9 of 1997 within a period of two weeks of the filing of a certified copy of this order before the Prescribed Authority, Chandausi by any of the parties in the present writ petition. 19. The Prescribed Authority, Chandausi will thereafter proceed to decide the said P. A. Case No. 9 of 1997 expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order before the Prescribed Authority, Chandausi by any of the parties in the present writ petition. Petition allowed. .