Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1473 (PAT)

PARMANAND SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA

2018-09-12

JYOTI SARAN

body2018
JUDGMENT : JYOTI SARAN, J. 1. Heard Mr. Vipin Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Ravinder Kumar Sharma, learned Central Government Counsel for the Union of India. 2. The writ petition was allowed with an advice to the opposite parties not to recover the penal rent from the petitioner as also to adjust the excess rent so recovered towards future rent. The quarter vacation order was also quashed alongside. Since no steps were taken that the petitioner alleging violation came before this Court in this contempt application. 3. A show cause is filed on behalf of the opposite parties and Mr. Sharma, learned Central Government Counsel in reference to an order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, GC, Central Reserve Police Force, Muzaffarpur enclosed at Annexure 'A' dated 30.07.2018 submits that the order has been complied. In reference to the direction present at paragraph 9 of the order he submits that the vacation notice has been cancelled and the petitioner has been allowed to continue in the quarter subject to the statutory Rules. The order imposing market/damage rent has also been cancelled and recovery stopped as also the excess rent so recovered from the petitioner has been directed for adjustment against future rent at normal licence fee. Mr. Vipin Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by filing a supplementary affidavit submits that it is pained by the hostility of the respondents that the petitioner has vacated the family quarter on 25.08.2018 and a vacation certificate to such effect is enclosed at Annexure 6 to the supplementary affidavit filed today. He thus submits that since the family of the petitioner has vacated the official quarter there can be no question of adjustment of the penal rent recovered towards future rent and thus appropriate direction be issued to the authorities for refund of the penal rent so recovered. 4. Having noted the order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, GC, CRPF, Muzaffarpur present at Annexure 'A' to the show cause, I am satisfied that no case of contempt is made out. 4. Having noted the order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, GC, CRPF, Muzaffarpur present at Annexure 'A' to the show cause, I am satisfied that no case of contempt is made out. However, taking note of the vacation certificate present at Annexure 6 to the supplementary affidavit, for the present, while granting liberty to the petitioner to raise his claim before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, GC, Central Reserve Police Force, Muzaffarpur for refund of the excess market/damage rent recovered from him enclosing the vacation certificate, I would direct the Deputy Inspector General of Police, GC, Central Reserve Police Force, Muzaffarpur to consider the claim of the petitioner for refund and dispose it of by a speaking order, to be passed within six weeks of filing of such claim. It goes without saying that any part of the claim found admissible, should be paid within the same period. 5. With the observation above, the contempt application is disposed of.