Hridyawati Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

Hridyawati Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before Respondent No. 2 (Vice Chairman, Prayagraj Development Authority) within two weeks along with certified copy of the order, writ petition and annexures; the authority to consider and decide it by a reasoned and speaking order after affording opportunity of hearing, preferably within six weeks of receipt; petitioner permitted to adduce evidence and take legal pleas; no coercive measures till fresh order; protection ceases if representation not filed within the stipulated period; merits left open to the authority.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 27.08.2019 (Annexure No. 18) and order dated 05.06.2020 (Annexure No. 20) passed by Respondent No. 4, challenged as an impugned demand notice, were liable to be quashed by certiorari. +1 more

Court's answer

The Court was of the firm opinion that the matter be heard afresh by Respondent No. 2 (Vice Chairman, Prayagraj Development Authority).

Ratio / Principle

Liberty granted to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before Respondent No. 2, Vice Chairman, Prayagraj Development Authority, ventilating her grievances within two weeks, along with a certified copy of the order, the writ petition and its annexures.

Key takeaways

On such representation, the authority shall consider and decide it by a reasoned and speaking order after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within six weeks from receipt of the representation.ratio¶10
The petitioner is open to adduce cogent evidence or file documents in support of her contention and take all legal pleas permissible in law before the authority.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WRIT - C No. 13292 of 2020, Order Date 10.9.2020 (Coram: Shashi Kant Gupta and Piyush Agrawal, JJ.). Hridyawati Mishra, a practising advocate appearing in person, challenged the order dated 27.08.2019 (Annexure No. 18) and order dated 05.06.2020 (Annexure No. 20) passed by Respondent No. 4, described as an impugned demand notice, and sought a mandamus for execution of the sale deed of Flat No. G-1107, Gagan Apartment, Vasudha Vihar, Kalindipuram, Prayagraj without insisting on deposit of the amounts specified in those orders. Without entering into the merits, the Division Bench disposed of the petition: liberty to file a fresh representation before Respondent No. 2, Vice Chairman, Prayagraj Development Authority, within two weeks; the authority to decide by a reasoned and speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing, preferably within six weeks; no coercive measures in the interregnum; the protection lapses if the representation is not filed within the stipulated period. No statute or precedent was discussed; no amount was quantified in the judgment.

Court No. - 32

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13292 of 2020

Petitioner :- Hridyawati Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dr.Haridyawati Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar,Pawan Kumar Singh

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

The petitioner is permitted to carry out necessary correction in the description of the Respondent No. 2 during the course of the day.

This writ petition has been filed, inter alia, for the following reliefs;

"(i) to issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and quashing the impugned order dated 27.08.2019 (Annexure No. 18 to the writ petition) and order dated 05.06.2020 (Annexure No. 20 to the writ petition) passed by Respondent No. 4.

(ii) to issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to execute the sale deed of Flat No. G-1107, Gagan Apartment, Vasudha Vihar, Kalindipuram, Prayagraj in favour of the petitioner forthwith without insisting her to deposit the amounts specified under the impugned order datd 27.08.2019 (Annexure No. 18 to the writ petition) and order dated 05.06.2020 (Annexure No. 20 to the writ petition) passed by respondent no. 4."

Heard petitioner Dr. Haridyawati Mishra, in person, who is a practising Advocate of this Court, Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the Development Authority and perused the record.

The impugned demand notice has been challenged on various grounds. We are of the firm opinion that the matter be heard afresh by the Respondent No. 2. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we grant liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Respondent No. 2, Vice Chairman, Prayagraj Development Authority ventilating her grievances within two weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order enclosing therewith a copy of the writ petition and its annexures and, if any such representation is made, the said authority shall make all endeavour to consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt of the said representation.

It is open for the petitioner to adduce any cogent evidence or file any document, if any, in support of her contention and take all legal pleas as permissible in law.

Till the fresh order is passed on the representation of the petitioner by the Respondent No. 2, no coercive measure shall be taken against the petitioner.

It is made clear that in case the petitioner does not approach the authority concerned within the stipulated period, as indicated herein above, the benefit given to the petitioner under this order shall cease to operate.

We make it clear that we have not entered into the merits of the claim being made by the petitioner and the same shall be decided by the authority concerned on its own merits.

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

Order Date :- 10.9.2020

vinay