Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1353 (ALL)

Sudhir Chand v. State of U. P.

2016-04-12

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, YASHWANT VARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT The petitioner claims to have been employed by a Company by the name of DSM Agro Products Ltd. at Moradabad. In that capacity, he claims that on 24 March 1992, he was allotted accommodation by the Factory Manager. A copy of the allotment order is annexed as Annexure-4 to the proceedings. According to the petitioner, his services were terminated by his employer which led to the institution of a proceeding before the Labour Court. Ultimately, the dispute has traveled to this Court where a writ petition filed by the petitioner (Sudhir Chand vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Writ-C No. 28453 of 2015) is stated to be pending. 2. The grievance of the petitioner relates to a demolition which is alleged to have taken place on 28 February 2016. This Court directed the learned Standing Counsel to take instructions from the Senior Superintendent of Police and District Magistrate, Moradabad in regard to the grievance of the petitioner that the building in which he was an occupant was demolished with the aid of the State machinery. The Assistant Superintendent of Police, Moradabad has submitted instructions to the learned Standing Counsel, a copy of which has been placed on the record. The instructions indicate that the demolition which has taken place has no connection with the State machinery. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, it has been stated that he was engaged by DSM Agro Products Ltd. and had been terminated in 1999. His case has also been rejected by the Labour Court. The instructions of the learned Standing Counsel are also to the effect that the mill where the petitioner was engaged was sold to Genus Paper & Boards Ltd. on 7 December 2002. 3. In this background, we are of the view that if the petitioner has a grievance in regard to an unlawful demolition of the premises, it will be open to him to seek recourse to the remedies both civil and criminal, as may be available in law. Insofar as civil remedies are concerned, it is common ground that the petitioner had filed a suit before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moradabad (OS No. 939 of 2015). The learned counsel states that no order of injunction enured in that suit and the suit was dismissed as withdrawn. Insofar as civil remedies are concerned, it is common ground that the petitioner had filed a suit before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moradabad (OS No. 939 of 2015). The learned counsel states that no order of injunction enured in that suit and the suit was dismissed as withdrawn. In the event that the petitioner has any grievance in regard to the demolition having been carried out unlawfully, it will be open to him to seek registration of an FIR before the competent police authority, if he is so advised. At this stage, we need to express no further view on the subject. The allegation that the State machinery was involved in the demolition has been specifically denied on the part of the Senior Superintendent of Police. Consequently, we leave it open to the petitioner to pursue the aforesaid remedies and to adopt appropriate proceedings, if any, for his grievance. 4. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.