Chitra v. State
Case brief
What is this about?
The Court issued interim relief pending a matter, directing the Sambalpur Development Authority to refrain from further action or demolition while allowing the petitioner to file a response to a show-cause notice within fifteen days.
What did the court decide?
Injunction against further action and demolition; stay on eviction; direction to Authority to file response within fifteen days; direction to Authority to decide within one month thereafter.
What the court decided
O.J.C. NO.3969 OF 1996
7.12.2016 Heard Sri S.K.Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K.K.Mishra, lear
ned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State.
In spite of notice, there is no appearance on behalf of O.P.2.
This writ application has been filed challenging the illegal action of the Sambalpu
r Development Authority in taking action for demolition of the petitioners premises even at a
time her case was under consideration, as appearing from Annexure-4.
It is contended by Sri Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner, that after the
order under Section 91 of the O.D.A. Act, vide Annexure-2 was passed, the petitioner made a re
quest to the Development Authority for further consideration of her case and it is following h
er request dated 29.3.1996, vide Annexure-3, the Development Authority issued a further notice
to the petitioner, vide Anenxure-4 on 16.4.1996 asking the petitioner to show cause to the un
dersigned within fifteen days. It is also contended by Sri Purohit that when the petitioner wa
s given fifteen days time to show cause in response to the direction under Anenxure-4, the act
ion of the Development Authority dated 23.4.1996 requesting the Superintendent of Police, Samb
alpur to provide personnel for undertaking a demolition process concerning the petitioner was
improper.
It is under the circumstance, Sri Purohit further contended that the action of the
Development Authority keeping the matter pending under Annexure-4 is bad and it should be inte
rfered with and necessary orders should be passed.
This matter was entertained on 3.5.1996 and this
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Development Authority could proceed with demolition while the petitioner's case was pending consideration.
Whether the petitioner must file her response under the notice before the Authority proceeds with the eviction.
What interim relief should be granted regarding the disputed structure.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Petitioner
- respondent
State
- respondent
O.P.2
- other
Sambalpur Development Authority
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court