Disposed

Gulfam Sigh Sisodia v. Union of India and 3 Others

Allahabad HC16 Apr 2018WRIC/13678/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition challenging unauthorized construction and violation of septic tank regulations, the High Court disposed of the matter without adjudicating on merits. It directed the Chief Executive Officer of the Cantonment Board to decide a pending representation after hearing parties within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Mathura to decide the petitioner's representation after hearing parties within two months.

Gulfam Sigh Sisodia Vs Union of India and 3… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13678 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Gulfam Sigh Sisodia Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bindeshwari Prasad Mishra,Satyendra Narayan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.

¶4

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J. Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶5

The petitioner is aggrieved by certain constructions having been made by the respondent No.4-Manju Singh contrary to the building plan that has been sanctioned by the Cantonment Board, Mathura.

¶6

In this connection, the petitioner has earlier submitted a representation before the Chief Executive Officer, Mathura which was disposed of on 26 August 2015 with a copy to respondent No.4-Manju Singh to ensure compliance of the order. The order is reproduced below:-

¶7

"9. On hearing both the parties, report given by JE of Cantt Board and observing the sanctioned building plan of House No.A-36, Moti Kunj, Mathura it has come to conclusion that the respondent has constructed the pillars as per sanctioned plan up till height of 1.8 meter from plinth level and pillars above this height is unauthorized which is required to be removed by respondent within 45 days. The respondent will not cover the side set back and will maintain the house building as per sanctioned building plan.

¶8

As regards the unauthorized construction of septic tank and flowing of outlet pipe of septic tank in open drain, it is observed that the septic tank is approved in the building plan and there is no mention about connecting the outlet pipe of septic tank in sewer line. Discharge of septic tank water (foul water) in surface water (open drain) is violation of Section 212 (1) (b) (8) of Cantonment Act 2006. Therefore the house owner of house No.A-36 Moti Kunj Ext, Mathura is directed to connect the outlet of septic tank in Sewer line within a period of 45 days from receipt of this order. The cantonment Board Mathura will provide all necessary help if required by the respondent for connecting of Septic tank outlet to Sewer Line by deposit work."

¶9

The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the aforesaid order dated 26 August 2015 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Mathura, respondent No.4-Manju Singh has not ensured compliance of the order dated 26 August 2015.

¶10

Sri Sunil Mishra, has put in appearance on behalf of Union of India. The Cantonment Board is not represented. In view of the

¶11

order proposed to be passed, it is not necessary to issue notice to respondent No.-Manju Singh.

¶12

The records indicate that the petitioner has filed a representation dated 19 March 2018 before the Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Mathura. The grievance of the petitioner can be taken care of by directing the Chief Executive Officer to take a decision on the representation filed by the petitioner after hearing the parties concerned including respondent No.-4 Manju Singh, who can also point out whether the order dated 26 August 2015 has been kept in abeyance or set aside by the Authority.

¶13

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction to the Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Mathura to decide the representation dated 19 March 2018 filed by the petitioner after hearing the parties concerned including respondent No.4-Manju Singh expeditiously and preferably within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of the order is filed by the petitioner.

¶14

It is made clear that the Court has not adjudicated on the merits of the case and it would be for the Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Boar, Mathura to decide it in accordance with law.

¶15

Order Date :- 16.4.2018 Akram

¶16

(Dilip Gupta,J.)

¶17

(Neeraj Tiwari,J.)

Gulfam Sigh Sisodia v. Union of India and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulfam Sigh Sisodia v. Union of India and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shahnawaz Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Hakim Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

State of U.P. Thru Secy. Basic Education Govt. of U.P. Vs Neeraj Kumar Pandey and 4 Others

Deepak Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Durgesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 249 others

Abid Hasan Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others