Disposed

M/S Sahib Automobiles and 2 Others v. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad and Another

Allahabad HC28 Aug 2020WRIC/11659/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners covered a drain to access their allotted industrial plot based on an agreement with the Nagar Nigam. Challenging an order mandating removal without a hearing, the Court noted the absence of an opportunity of being heard. The petition was disposed of with liberty to file a representation. The operation of the impugned order is suspended for five weeks.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file a representation; operation of the impugned order suspended for five weeks; authority to decide after hearing within three weeks.

M/S Sahib Automobiles and 2 Others… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 1 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11659 of 2020 Petitioner :- M/S Sahib Automobiles And 2 Others Respondent :- Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- S. Shekhar Counsel for Respondent :- Hansraj Singh Bist

¶2

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶3

Sri Brijesh Kumar Shukla, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2 and has pointed out that though the notice has been served on Sri Hansraj Singh Bist, Advocate, but now he has been allotted the case to represent the respondent nos.1 and 2 and has sought permission of the Court to argue the case.

¶4

He is directed to file his power on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2 in the Registry of this Court today.

¶5

Heard Sri S. Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Brijesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 and 2 and perused the record.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that in identical matter a coordinate Bench of this Court has passed an order in Writ-C No.12091 of 2020 disposing of the same vide order dated 25.8.2020, hence the present writ petition be also disposed of in the light of the said order of this Court, which has not been disputed by Sri Brijesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2.

¶7

By means of this writ petition the petitioners claim that they were allotted Plot No.28/3/6, Site IV, Industrial Area, Sahibabad by Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation (UPSIDC). It is submitted that the land has no clear passage. However, on the southern side there is one sixty feet wide drain

¶8

and in order to access his plot, the petitioners entered into an agreement with the Nagar Nigam by executing a license deed dated 17th July, 2009 with the stipulation that the petitioners will cover the drain in front of their plot for using the same as passage for reaching its plot and provide maintenance under the covered area. The petitioners constructed a concrete slab and has covered the drain and has been using it as passage since 2009. Now without assigning any reason the Nagar Nigam has passed an order dated 03.07.2020 asking the petitioners to remove the slab constructed over the drain.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that once an agreement has been arrived at between the petitioners and the Nagar Nigam for construction of the slab over the drain and thereafter the petitioners constructed the slab and are running their business on the plot, now without affording any opportunity no direction can be issued to the petitioners to remove the slab.

¶10

Sri Brijesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the Nagar Nigam submits that at the time the plot was allotted by the UPSIDC, the petitioners ought to have taken care whether there is ingress and out-gress to their plot or not, but at that time they were not vigilant and after allotment of plot they have illegally constructed a slab over the drain. It is further submitted that the terms and conditions of the deed is being violated by the petitioners and therefore this order has been passed.

¶11

It is made clear that once an agreement has been arrived at between the parties and according to which the petitioners have constructed the slab over the drain and running their business, no order could be passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioners, which in the present case does not appear to have been done.

¶12

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file a representation ventilating all their grievances before the Nagar Nigam (Respondent No. 1) along with a copy of this order within two weeks from today. On such representation being made, the authority concerned shall consider and decide the same and pass an appropriate order after giving opportunity to the petitioners within three weeks thereafter.

¶13

For a period of 5 weeks from today, the operation of the order dated 03.07.2020 shall remain suspended and same will abide by the orders to be passed by the Nagar Nigam, as directed above.

¶14

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶15

The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person(s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number(s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked, before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.

¶16

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶17

Order Date :- 28.8.2020/Tamang

¶18

(Ajit Singh,J.) (Ramesh Sinha,J.)

M/S Sahib Automobiles and 2 Others v. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sahib Automobiles and 2 Others v. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad and Another

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

Ashish Singraur Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Changez Rana Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Sumit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajendra Yadav Vs Saroj and 3 Others

Anis Ansari Vs Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and 2 Others

M/S Kamla Printing Press Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others