The court dismissed a writ petition challenging a show-cause notice. It held that premature apprehension of arbitrary eviction is unjustified and no grounds for interference exist until orders are passed after the statutory reply period.
Writ petition dismissed with no interim relief granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12391 of 2023
Petitioner :- Awadhesh Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Adarsh Bhushan,Amrendra Nath Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Present petition has been filed challenging the show-cause notice issued against the petitioner under Section 4 and Section 7 of U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 1972.
Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner apprehends that the petitioner may be evicted in an arbitrary exercise of powers.
There is no reason to justify the said apprehension as argued by the petitioner.
It is well settled that after the reply is filed to the notice under Section 4 and Section 7, orders are required to be passed under Section 5 and Section 7(2) of the Act respectively against which a remedy of appeal lies.
It is well settled that the authorities are presumed to decide in accordance with law.
There being no justification for the apprehension expressed by the counsel for the petitioner, no good ground for interference at this stage is made out.
The petitioner would be well within his rights to file objections and to contest the proceedings in accordance with law.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed .
Order Date :- 13.4.2023 nishant
Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition is maintainable to challenge mere apprehension of arbitrary eviction before any order is passed under the Act.
Whether the petitioner has good ground for court interference at this stage during the pre-proceedings stage.
Whether appropriate remedies are available to the petitioner after the passing of orders under Section 5 and Section 7(2) of the Act.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Awadhesh Sharma
State Of U.P.
Pankaj Bhatia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
