Smt. Seema Shrivastava Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 4134 of 2014

Smt. Seema Shrivastava W/o Shri Rakesh Shrivastava Aged About 37 Years R/o House No.I-13, Forest Colony, Pandri, Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg, Posted As Assistant Grade Iii, Forest Department, Raipur, Forest Division, Distt Raipur, Cg, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. S/o Through Secretary, Department Of Forest, Naya Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg, Chhattisgarh

¶7

2. Head Chief Conservator Of Forest Aranya Bhavan, Medical Collage Road, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

3. Uper Pradhan Mukhya Van Sanrakshak-Sah-Adhyakchha Department Quarters Allotment Committee, Raipur Division, Distt Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

4. Chief Conservator Of Forest Office Of Head Chief Conservator Of Forest, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

5. Conservator Of Forest Raipur Division, Dist Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

6. Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Raipur, Ps And Distt Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents

¶12

(Cause-title is taken from Case Information System)

¶13

For Petitioner : Ms. Sakshi Mehta, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Smita Jha, Advocate. For Respondents/ State : Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, P. L.

¶14

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶15

27.06.2024

¶16

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-

¶17

10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire record concerning the case of the petitioner from the possession of the respondent authorities for its kind perusal.

¶18

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ quashing/ setting aside the impugned order dated

¶19

2

¶20

30.7.2014 (Annexure P/1) and consequentially the order dated 10.06.2014 (Annexure P/11).

¶21

10.3 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit or proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶22

2. Facts of the present case are that the petitioner was holding the post of Assistant Grade-III in the office of Divisional Forest Officer, Raipur Division at the relevant time. The Departmental Quarters Allotment Committee vide its order dated 20.08.2010 allotted residential accommodation to the petitioner and other employees at Pandri, Raipur on the terms and conditions mentioned in the said order. The name of the petitioner appears at S. No. 23 and she was allotted Quarter No. I-23. On 10.07.2012, the petitioner made a complaint to respondents No. 3 to 6 making certain allegations against the watchmen and drivers living in the neighbourhood. On 27.06.2013, a complaint was made before respondent No. 6 with regard to problems being created by certain miscreants by stopping the water supply and clogging the septic tank. On 17.02.2014, another complaint was made against an employee, namely, Kanizbai (peon). On 19.03.2014, a driver namely, Nand Kumar Yadav came to her house and threatened the petitioner and her family with dire consequences and a report was lodged at P. S. Civil Lines, Raipur to that effect. Later on, the matter was settled between them and the complaint was withdrawn on 26.03.2014. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 26.03.2014 as to why government accommodation allotted to her be not cancelled. The petitioner filed her reply on 02.04.2014. On 10.06.2014, allotment of residential accommodation to the petitioner was cancelled (Annexure P/11) . Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No. 3 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 30.07.2014 (Annexure P/1).

¶23

3

¶24

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order of cancellation of allotment of residential accommodation was issued by Upper Pradhan Mukhya Van Sanrakshak i.e. respondent No. 3 on 10.06.2014 and the same authority decided the appeal so preferred by the petitioner and passed the order on 30.07.2014. She would further submit that a person cannot be a judge in his own cause. She would pray to quash the orders dated 10.06.2014 and 30.07.2014.

¶25

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose. She would submit that there were various complaints against the petitioner, therefore, the order of cancellation of residential accommodation allotted to the petitioner was passed by Upper Pradhan Mukhya Van Sanrakshak i.e. respondent No. 3 on 10.06.2014. She would further submit that subsequently, the petitioner has been allotted another residential accommodation i.e. G-3 at Forest Colony, Mana, Raipur.

¶26

5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and carefully perused the documents placed on record.

¶27

6. From a perusal of the documents placed on the record, it appears that the residential accommodation was allotted to the petitioner vide order dated 20.08.2010. While taking cognizance of the complaints received against the petitioner, the allotment of residential accommodation in the name of the petitioner was cancelled vide order dated 10.06.2014 by respondent No. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the same authority vide order 30.07.2014. Even though the petitioner has been allotted a new residential accommodation and she is staying there along with her family, the authority which passed the initial order cannot sit as the appellate authority.

¶28

4

¶29

Therefore, the order passed in appeal by respondent No. 3 dated 30.07.2014 is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the authorities to decide the appeal so preferred by the petitioner strictly in accordance with law.

¶30

7. It is made clear that the appeal shall be decided by the competent appellate authority.

¶31

8. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.

¶32

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶33

Ajinkya

Smt. Seema Shrivastava v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Seema Shrivastava v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kishan Lal Azad Vs State Of C.g. and Ors.

Amitabh Tiwari Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Gurudayal Sen Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Vinod Kumar Tiwari Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Surendra Kumar Jain Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Bhagwat Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.