Premalata Dalai v. State
Case brief
What is this about?
Petitioners challenging eviction notice for temporary shops filed representation; Court declined interference but ordered status quo for six weeks and required Collector to consider representation within four weeks.
What did the court decide?
Status quo maintained for six weeks; Collector to consider representation within four weeks; no immediate interference with eviction notice.
What the court decided
W.P.(C) NO.17335 OF 2014
06.11.2015
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioners in this Writ Petition challenge the notice dated 03.09.2014 issued by the
Tahasildar, Kujang directing eviction of the petitioners and threatening demolition of their t
emporary shop-sheds situated in and around Biju Pattanaik Market Complex, Paradip Garh in the
district of Jagatsinghpur.
On perusal of records, it appears that the petitioners are small retail businessmen.
They have established their business by putting cabins and setting temporary sheds at the mark
et complex namely The Biju Pattanaik Market Complex at Paradip Garh, Dist. Jagatsinghpur at sh
ort distance from the National Highway-51. The opposite party No.3- Tahasildar, Kujang has i
ssued a notice to the petitioners for eviction. After receiving the said notice, they have fi
led a representation before the Tahasildar, Kujang on 08.09.2014 with a request to give a reas
onable time for making an alternative arrangement for their business and not to evict them imm
ediately on 10.9.2014 at such short notice, which has not been taken into consideration by him
. The petitioners have been maintaining their family from out of the said business since lon
g and they have no other source of income.
In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order
in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitutions of India. However, in
case the petitioners file a representation before the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jagat
singhpur-opposite party No.2 within a period of two weeks from today, the said opposite party
No.2 shall consider the representation within a period of four weeks thereafter. Status quo a
s on date shall be maintained by the parities for a period of six weeks from today.
The Writ Petition along with Misc. Case is accordingly disposed of.
2
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the eviction notice issued by the Tahasildar should be set aside or status quo maintained pending consideration by higher authority?
How much time should be granted to petitioners/Collector to present representations regarding alternative business arrangements?
Whether the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India justifies interference with the impugned order?
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Petitioners
- respondent
Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur
- respondent
Tahasildar, Kujang
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court