Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1145 (MP)

Kalyandas Khandelwal v. State of M. P.

2012-11-06

R.S.JHA

body2012
Judgment R.S. Jha, J;- 1. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 15.05.2007 by which a sum of Rs. 51,475/- towards arrears of rent in respect of government quarter No. F-95/28 at Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal has been ordered. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is working in the establishment of respondent No. 4 and was allotted the aforesaid quarter by order dated 06.06.2005. Subsequently the authorities by order dated 22.08.05 cancelled the allotment in favour of the petitioner, against which the petitioner had filed a representation and his matter has also been favourably forwarded by the respondent No. 4 on 04.03.2006 but the authorities after considering the representation of the petitioner again rejected the same on 02.06.2006, pursuant to which the petitioner immediately vacated the accommodation on 13.06.2006 but the authorities without taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect issued the impugned order dated 15.05.07 directing recovery of rent at the enhanced rate from 22.08.05 onwards. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner had been duly allotted the quarter in question but thereafter the allotment was cancelled. It is stated that the petitioner had filed a representation, which was pending before the authorities and was rejected only on 02.06.2006 with a direction to vacate the quarter in question and in such circumstances the enhanced rent cannot be recovered from the petitioner for the aforesaid period, as no fault can be attributed to the petitioner for occupying the quarter in question. It is submitted that the aforesaid aspect has not been considered and in such circumstances, the impugned order be quashed. 3. On a perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner, it is apparent that this aspect has not been considered by the authorities nor have they applied their mind to the same. 4. The learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent/State does not dispute this aspect. 5. In the circumstances, as respondents are required to apply their mind to the issue raised by the petitioner and take a decision specifically the allegation that the petitioner was duly allotted the quarter by the authorities, which was subsequently cancelled by them and that the petitioner immediately vacated the quarter on rejection of his representation. 6. 5. In the circumstances, as respondents are required to apply their mind to the issue raised by the petitioner and take a decision specifically the allegation that the petitioner was duly allotted the quarter by the authorities, which was subsequently cancelled by them and that the petitioner immediately vacated the quarter on rejection of his representation. 6. The petition filed by the petitioner is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner files a fresh representation before the respondent No. 2 alongwith a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition within 15 days, the said authority shall consider the same expeditiously in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner if necessary, by passing a reasoned order as far as possible preferably within a period of three months thereafter. With the aforesaid direction, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of.