Allowed

M/S Kr Amusement and Resort v. Gorakhpur Development Authority and 4 Others

Allahabad HC6 Dec 2019WRIC/38617/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging an order cancelling an agreement/lease deed, the High Court set aside the impugned order passed without hearing. The Court directed the respondent authority to pass a fresh order after issuing a show cause notice and affording a personal hearing to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 08.11.2019 was set aside with consent of parties; respondent authority directed to pass fresh order after showing cause and personal hearing.

M/S Kr Amusement and Resort Vs Gorakhpur… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 32

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38617 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- M/S Kr Amusement And Resort Respondent :- Gorakhpur Development Authority And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Pathak, Dinesh Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., K.R. Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.

¶5

This writ petition has been filed, interalia, for the following relief:

¶6

"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 08.11.2019 (annexure no. 1), bearing letter no. 77/Das-Sampatti/GDA/2019-20 passed by Vice Chairman, Gorakhpur Development Authority, Gorakhpur cancelling agreement/lease deed dated 28.10.2005 in violation of Clause 23 of said agreement deed."

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the impugned order dated 08.11.2019 has been passed by the respondent no. 2- Vice Chairman, Gorakhpur Development Authority, Gorakhpur without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as such, the aforementioned order has been passed in utter violation of principle of natural justice.

¶9

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-Gorakhpur Development Authority has not disputed the contention so made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and fairly stated that a fresh order would be passed by the concerned Authority after giving opportunity of

¶10

personal hearing to the petitioner.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order dated 08.11.2019 passed by the respondent no. 2 is hereby set aside with the consent of the parties. However, it is open for the respondent authorities to pass a fresh order after issuing show cause notice and affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. In case, a show cause notice is issued by the respondentsauthority against the petitioner, it is open for the petitioner to adduce any cogent evidence, if any, in support of his contention and take all legal pleas as permissible in law.

¶12

It is also brought to our notice that the property in question has already been sealed by the concerned authority and the matter is under consideration before the Chairman, Gorakhpur Development Authority. We make it very clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the sealing of the property in question by the authority concerned. As far as the sealing of the property in question is concerned, the concerned authority may proceed in accordance with law.

¶13

It is also made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merit of the case. The concerned authority shall consider the matter on its own merits.

¶14

With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition is allowed.

¶15

Order Date :- 6.12.2019/Arun

M/S Kr Amusement and Resort v. Gorakhpur Development Authority and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Kr Amusement and Resort v. Gorakhpur Development Authority and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baburam Vs Executive Engineer Vidyut Vitran and 3 Others

M/S Param Rice Mill and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pramod Kumar Vs U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and 02 Others

Ajai Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gauri Shankar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Veerendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 03 Others