Allowed

Smt. Binda Gupta and Another v. Addl. Commissioner, (Judicial), Prayagraj Division Prayagraj and Others

Allahabad HC24 Oct 2024WRIC/9016/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition holding that an order rejecting an interim relief application passed by the Additional Commissioner under the UP Z.A. & L.R. Act was nonspeaking. The matter was remitted for reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remitted to Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Prayagraj Division to reconsider application for interim relief.

Smt. Binda Gupta and Another vs Addl… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:71634

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9016 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Binda Gupta And Another Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner, (Judicial), Prayagraj Division Prayagraj And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amar Nath Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice on behalf of the respondent No.1 and 2 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel has accepted notice for the respondent No.3. Shri M.P. Singh, learned counsel has put in appearance and has also filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondents No.4 and 5, which is taken on record.

¶7

In view of the controversy involved in the instant petition, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself without calling for any counter affidavit and by dispensing the notice on the respondents No.6 to 12.

¶8

The instant petition assails the order dated 13.09.2024 passed by the respondent No.2 whereby while admitting an appeal arising out of the proceedings under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, for hearing but upon considering an application for interim relief, the same has been rejected.

¶9

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the impugned order is non-speaking and even while rejecting the application for interim relief, no reasons has been recorded. Merely submissions have been incorporated in the order that three ingredients are required to consider an application for interim relief are not made out. There is no mention what was submitted and there is also no mention of the material available on record and how the Court formed its opinion that the material available on record was not sufficient for consideration of an application for interim relief. Thus, it is urged that the impugned order is completely without reasons and nonspeaking.

¶10

Shri M.P. Singh, learned counsel for the private-respondents No.4 and 5 has raised an objection that the instant petition is not

¶11

maintainable inasmuch as the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners has been sworn by one Suraj Jaiswal, who is the son of the petitioner No.1 and nephew of the petitioner No.2.

¶12

The submission is that there is no written authorization permitting the deponent to file the said writ petition on behalf of the petitioners. It is in this view of the matter that the petition be dismissed.

¶13

It has further been submitted that insofar as the impugned order is concerned, apparently, the same is non-reasoned and in such circumstances it would be appropriate if the matter can be heard and decided by the Court concerned, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties by a reasoned and speaking order.

¶14

Insofar as the objection raised by Shri M.P. Singh, learned counsel for the private-respondents No.4 and 5 is concerned regarding the petition not being properly instituted in absence of proper authorization, but the learned counsel could not point out any provision nor any decision in support of his submission, consequently, the objection is turned down as it has not been substantiated.

¶15

Since, the order impugned had been passed at the admission stage where the private-respondents No.6 to 12 were not present before the first appellate Court and the said order was passed only after hearing the petitioner and the private-respondents No.4 and 5. Thus, for the aforesaid, the notice for the privaterespondents No.6 to 12 is dispensed with as they are not affected at this stage including in light of the order passed by the Court, the matter shall be reconsidered as provided above.

¶16

Having considered the aforesaid submissions and a perusal of the material on record, apparently, the order impugned is nonspeaking. It could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the private-respondents that the order impugned does not incorporate any single reason as to why the application for interim relief is rejected. This practice of passing non-speaking order has been deprecated by this Court as well as Apex Court and in this regard the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Cyril Lasrado (Dead) by LRs and another vs. Juliana Maria Lasrado and another, (2004) 7 SCC 431 is worthwhile to be considered.

¶17

In view of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, the impugned order apparently cannot be sustained. As a consequence, the same is set aside. The matter shall stand remitted to the Court of Additional Commissioner (Judicial),

¶18

Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj, who shall reconsider the application for interim relief after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties but without granting any unnecessary adjournment and shall endeavour to decide the said application afresh on the next date fixed i.e. 11.11.2024, as informed by the learned counsel for the parties. In case if it is not possible then within next three weeks thereafter.

¶19

It is made clear that this Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merit and the order impugned has been set aside purely on the ground that it is non-speaking.

¶20

With the aforesaid observations, the petition is allowed .

¶21

Order Date :- 24.10.2024 Rakesh/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Binda Gupta and Another v. Addl. Commissioner, (Judicial), Prayagraj Division Prayagraj and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Binda Gupta and Another v. Addl. Commissioner, (Judicial), Prayagraj Division Prayagraj and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sudhir Kumar Prajapati @ Sudhir Kumar Vs Up Ziladhikari, Tahsil Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow and Others

Sunil Dutt Pandey and Another Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda and Others

Kailash @ Kailash Nath Vs Addl. Commissioner Administration-I Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and Others

Smt. Binda Gupta and Another Vs Addl. Commissioner, (Judicial), Prayagraj Division Prayagraj and Others

Ibrar Khan and Others Vs Addl. Commissioner (Administration ), Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and Others

Awadhesh Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector, Deoria and Others