Writ petition challenging issuance of eviction notice and recovery of seized goods. Court holds petitioner's late appeal demonstrates lethargic approach and dismisses petition, allowing pending appeal to continue.
Writ petition dismissed; petitioner allowed to pursue pending appeal before respondent No. 2.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 3479 of 2020
Md Junaid Ahmed
..... … Petitioner
Versus
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Shadab Eqbal, Advocate For the Res. Nos.1-4 : Mr. Ankit Kumar, A.C. to S.C. (Mines)-I --------
05/09.02.2021 The present writ petition is taken up today through Video conferencing.
The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to maintain status quo and keep impugned notice dated 8th October, 2020 issued by the Circle Officer, Khunti-respondent no.4 in abeyance till disposal of JBC Appeal No.03R15/2020 filed by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner, Khunti-respondent no.2 against the order dated 26th December, 2019 passed by the respondent no.3. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to keep the electronic goods of the petitioner in safe hands which were seized illegally by the executing authority i.e., the respondent no.3 on 15th October, 2020 during locking of the premises in question. It has also been prayed to withhold the delivery of possession of the premises in question to the respondent no.5, till the disposal of aforesaid appeal pending before the respondent no.2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.5 filed eviction case against the petitioner being EV-30/2018-19 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Khunti-the respondent no.3, who vide order dated 26th December, 2019 allowed the said case in favour of the respondent no.5 and directed the petitioner to vacate the shop/house in question as well as to make payment of arrears of rent to the respondent no.5 within 90 days from the said order. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent no.2 on 10th September, 2020 which is still pending. In the meantime, the respondent no.4 issued the impugned notice dated 8th October, 2020 informing the petitioner that the said respondent was deputed as magistrate by the respondent no.3 in
- 2 -
terms with Memo No.497/Go. dated 25th September, 2020 issued in connection with EV-30/2018-19. It is further submitted that on 15th October, 2020 at 12 O’ Clock noon, the process of evicting the petitioner from the shop was to be done and, thus, the petitioner preferred an application before the respondent no.4 intimating him that the appeal was pending before the respondent no.2. The petitioner also filed an application before the respondent no.2 on 16th October, 2020 praying inter alia for passing an order of status quo till the disposal of the aforesaid appeal filed before him, however, no order was passed by the respondent no.2 on the same. Hence, the present writ petition.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State respondents submits that impugned notice dated 8th October, 2020 has rightly been issued by the respondent no.4 as it would be apparent from the said notice itself that the respondent no.4 was deputed as magistrate by the respondent no.3 in execution of the order passed in EV-30/2018-19. It is further submitted that the petitioner himself is to be blamed for the present situation as he preferred appeal before the respondent no.2 against the order dated 26th December, 2019 passed by the respondent no.3 as late as on 10th September, 2020. Moreover, the petitioner appears to have filed an application in JBC Appeal No.03R15/2020 on 16th October, 2020 i.e., after issuance of the impugned notice by the respondent no.4. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve any relief from this Court.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the content of the writ petition.
The petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 26th December, 2019 passed by the respondent no.3 appears to have filed JBC Appeal No.03R15/2020 before the respondent no.2 on 10th September, 2020 i.e., after about nine months. It further appears that the respondent no.3 thereafter, in execution of the order dated 26th December, 2019 passed in case no.EV-30/2018-19, deputed the respondent no.4 as magistrate vide memo no.497/Go. dated 25th September, 2020 to execute the said order by getting the shop/house occupied by the petitioner vacated. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an application before the respondent no.2 seeking interim relief in the pending appeal. The aforesaid facts clearly suggests lethargic and casual approach of the petitioner. Hence, I am not
- 3 -
inclined to interfere with the impugned notice dated 8th October, 2020 issued by the respondent no.4 as he is under legal obligation to execute the order passed by the Rent Controller (the respondent no.3) in the said eviction case.
The writ petition being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to pursue the pending appeal before the respondent no.2.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Rohit
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the issuance of an eviction notice by enforcing an order of lower authority despite a pending appeal filed late by the petitioner.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to maintain status quo or recovery of seized electronic goods when their appeal regarding eviction was filed after a long delay.
Whether the writ petition revealing a lethargic and casual approach of the petitioner is devoid of merit and deserves dismissal.
Md Junaid Ahmed
State of Jharkhand
Deputy Commissioner, Khunti
Sub-Divisional Officer, Khunti
Circle Officer, Sadar, Khunti
Krishna Kishore Bhagat
Rajesh Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
