Disposed

Mrs. Bibha Tripathi and Another v. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow and Another

Allahabad HC7 Jun 2024A227/2918/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This interim order addresses the disposal of a writ petition under Article 227 regarding an eviction case where petitioners were locked inside theirpremises. The court directed police and local authorities to unlock the premises for the safety of individuals trapped inside while directing families to vacate within an hour and noting the writ petition's pending status before the Chief Judicial Magi

What did the court decide?

Direct the police and local authorities to unlock the premises to allow trapped individuals to exit and then re-lock them, directing the families to vacate within 30 minutes of unlocking. The writ pet

Mrs. Bibha Tripathi and Another vs Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow and Another — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:42670

¶2

Court No. - 3

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2918 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Mrs. Bibha Tripathi And Another Respondent :- Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow And Another

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Desh Deepak Singh,Durgesh Kumar Shukla,Pradeep Pandey

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that an urgency was mentioned before Hon'ble the Senior Judge yesterday i.e. on 6.6.2024 for taking up the writ petition filed on

¶8

6.6.2024 on 7.6.2024. The permission was granted and in

¶9

pursuance thereof the matter is listed today before this Court.

¶10

The present writ petition has been preferred with the following prayers:

¶11

"1. Issue an order, or direction to opposite party no.1 to decide the recall application.

¶12

2. Issue an order, or direction directing the opposite party no.2 to not take any coercive steps till the pendency of the recall application.

¶13

3. Issue any order or direction which the court may find appropriate to factual matrix of the case."

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a supplementary affidavit, which is taken on record.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the opposite party no.2 had sanctioned the credit facility to the petitioners as Housing Loan, for which the petitioners had paid the installments regularly till 6.2.2023. However, due to unavoidable circumstances, the installments thereafter could not be paid and account has become NPA. The proceedings were also initiated by the Respondent No.2 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, firstly before the Additional District

¶16

Magistrate but the same was withdrawn by the Respondent No.2 and after 2-3 days of the withdrawal another application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2022 has been preferred before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, in which an order has been passed on 22.03.2024 for eviction of the petitioners from the premises within 30 days. The order was passed ex-parte, against which the petitioners have preferred recall application on 1.5.2024, which is pending but the Respondent No.2 is exerting pressure for vacation of the premises, so the present writ petition has been preferred after mentioning urgency before the Court to direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate to decide the recall application.

¶17

It is further submitted that after filing of the present writ petition on 6.6.2024 the Bank official alongwith police force had come in forenoon and locked the premises from outside without taking into consideration that the petitioner No.1, his younger son and his wife were inside house, or another words these three persons have been locked inside the house by the Respondent No.2 with the assistance of the police.

¶18

On the other hand Sri Shankar Singh, learned counsel for the Bank-Opposite Party No.2 has submitted that the Chief Judicial Magistrate by its order dated 22.3.2024 had granted 30 days time to the petitioners and the order was duly served upon the petitioners on 4.4.2024, but the petitioners had chosen not to vacate the premises, so under these circumstances after the expiry of 30 days period or more than 60 days with the assistance of the police the premises has been locked and the call bell was pressed and neighbors have given the statement that the petitioners with their family had shifted on some other place.

¶19

It is further submitted that while all these exercises were going on, no one had come out from inside the house. It was neither in the knowledge of the Respondent No.2 nor in the knowledge of the police that somebody is inside the house, but if that is the position the Respondent No.2 is ready to unlock the locks in the presence of the police to get the Petitioner No.1 alongwith two other family members to come out from the premises today itself.

¶20

It is further informed that the matter is fixed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate today itself.

¶21

Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 has further submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable against the private finance institution, but the Respondent No.2 is not raising this issue as certain people have been locked inside the premises.

¶22

Learned Standing Counsel is requested to communicate this order to the C.O. Gomtinagar Extension and S.H.O. Gomtinagar that if the petitioners and the Respondent No.2 approach the C.O./S.H.O. Gomtinagar Extension, who shall alongwith his team visit the premises and unlock the locks for the purpose of taking out the person who have been locked inside the house yesterday and after they come out from the premises shall again be locked, which is subject to the decision of the Chief Judicial Magistrate where the matter is pending.

¶23

It is further directed that the petitioners and their family as mentioned in the supplementary affidavit may vacate or leave the premises within 1/2 an hour from unlocking of the premises.

¶24

The writ petition is finally disposed of in the above terms.

¶25

Order Date :- 7.6.2024 S. Kumar

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SANTOSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mrs. Bibha Tripathi and Another v. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Bibha Tripathi and Another v. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sangam Lal Tripathi and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dairy Development Lko. and 2 Others

Shahid Hussain Vs State of U.P. Thru. a.C.S./ Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Surendra Kumar Vs U.P. Co-Operative Village Development Bank Ltd., Ayodhya Thru. Regional Manager and Another

Mohammad Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Others

Kalyan Rai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Vocational Education and Skill Development Lko. and 2 Others

Mrs. Bibha Tripathi and Another Vs Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow and Another