Disposed

Anwar Ahmad v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC14 Aug 2019WRIC/26879/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ filed by Anwar Ahmad pending appeal against an order to recover dues, the High Court directed the appellate authority to expedite disposal of the stay application and restrained all further coercive action, including auction, during the pendency of that stay application.

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner must decide the pending stay application; all further coercive actions against the petitioner are stayed.

Anwar Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 4… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26879 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Anwar Ahmad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Adarsh Bhushan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Kumar for the State respondents.

¶6

This petition was mentioned before the Court on 13 August 2019 when it was urged that the properties of the petitioner were likely to be auctioned on 16 August 2019. The mention so made was accepted and the matter was consequently directed to be included in the list of fresh cases of the Court today. It is in the above backdrop that the matter was taken up for consideration today.

¶7

This petition has been preferred seeking the issuance of directions commanding the second respondent to decide the Stay Application and the Statutory Appeal preferred by the petitioner. A further writ is sought for restraining the respondents from proceeding with the auction of the Farm House of the petitioner set for 16 August 2019. The proceedings themselves emanate from an order passed by the District Magistrate on 12 August 2011 seeking to recover dues from the petitioner on the allegation of misappropriation and wrongful use of government funds. The order itself was passed pursuant to a report submitted by a three member committee on 7 May 2011. In implementation of that order a citation to appear is stated to have been issued and served upon the petitioner and is appended at Annexure -3 to the writ petition. It becomes pertinent to note that aggrieved by the order passed by the

¶8

District Magistrate, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 27(3) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1947 . The appeal preferred on 8 July 2017 was ultimately taken on board by the Commissioner on 24 July 2019 and placed for hearing on 8 August 2019. It is also pertinent to note that along with that appeal an application for stay was also moved on 8 August 2019 seeking an order of restraint against the respondents in respect of auction proceedings which were fixed for 16 August 2019, the said Stay Application has not been disposed of till date constraining the petitioner to approach this Court. It may be lastly noted that as per the averments made in the writ petition the property which is proposed to be put to auction has also been sealed and attached by the respondents.

¶9

Sri Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the entire action initiated by the respondents is clearly aimed at perempting the consideration of the appeal and the Stay Application made therein. Sri Bhushan has also assailed the order of the District Magistrate on jurisdictional grounds and contends that no powers stand conferred on that authority under Section 27 of the Act or Rule 256 of the Rules framed thereunder to direct recovery of surcharge.

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for parties, this Court is of the considered view that insofar as the issue of merits is concerned, that must necessarily be left for consideration of the Commissioner who is ceased of the appeal. The Court presently is only concerned with the coercive action taken against the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal.

¶11

Admittedly, although the property of the petitioner has been sealed and attached, in the appeal which has been entertained, the Stay Application has neither been considered nor disposed of till date.

¶12

Regard must be had to the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Mool Chand Yadav and Others Vs. Raza Buland Sugar Company Limited, Rampur And Others, (1982) 3 SCC 484 , in terms of which this Court is of the firm view that once the appeal had been entertained and set down for hearing, it was incumbent upon the Commissioner to preserve and maintain the status quo . In view thereof, the ends of justice would merit this petition being disposed of in the following terms.

¶13

The Commissioner shall consider and decide the Stay Application made by the petitioner in the pending statutory appeal with expedition. Till such time as the Stay Application is decided by the Commissioner all further coercive action taken against the petitioner shall remain stayed . The Stay Application may be disposed of by the Commissioner in accordance with law. It is only clarified that all contentions of respective parties are kept open and the Commissioner shall proceed to decide the appeal on merits and uninfluenced by any observation as appearing in this order.

¶14

Order Date :- 14.8.2019 Arun K. Singh

¶15

(Yashwant Varma, J.)

Anwar Ahmad v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anwar Ahmad v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Dharikshna Devi and 5 Others Vs Lakshman and 2 Others

Sukhbir Singh and Others Vs Addl. Commissioner and Others

Abdul Zaffar Vs State of U.P. and Others

Arvind Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravindra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinay Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others