L.R. ARYA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2013-8-13
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on August 02,2013

L.R. Arya Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

V.K.Bist, J. - (1.) ON 24th July, 2013, this Court directed the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to file their reply within a period of two weeks from that day showing cause as to why some persons were permitted to occupy the Govt. accommodation, even after their transfer/retirement and why discriminatory approach has been adopted in regard to other persons. Two weeks time has not been completed till date. Counsel for the petitioner Smt. Neetu Singh insisted that since application for extension of time to occupy the accommodation in question has been rejected, the writ petition may be heard finally. In such circumstances, the matter is being heard finally today itself. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are not required to file affidavit, as directed by this Court on 24.07.2013.
(2.) THIS petition has been filed for the following reliefs: - "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order/letter dated 01.05.2013 (annexure -8) and letter dated 13.05.2013 (annexure -9) issued by respondent No. 4. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to evict the petitioner from the residential accommodation A -1, Bairaj Colony, Rishikesh, Dehradun, till the expiry of extension period of one year from 01.07.2012, as extended by State Government and also directed by Head of Department. III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to charge the rent of the residential accommodation of the petitioner in accordance with G.O. dated 24.09.2008 (annexure -2) and three times rent of prescribed rent i.e. Rs. 1260+15=1275/ - per month may be charged from petitioner till the expiry of extension period or further order by State Government regarding extension in this regard. IV. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to initiate any recovery proceedings against the petitioner for recovering rent on penalized rent. V. Issue any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. VI. Award cost of the petition." Formerly, the petition was heard on 29.05.2013. On that date, time was granted to the respondents for filing counter affidavit and case was directed to be listed in the month of July, 2013. Thereafter, considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and in the interest of justice, this Court permitted the petitioner to stay in the accommodation in question till 30th June, 2013 with the condition to deposit a sum of Rs. 24,000/ - in pursuance of notice dated 01.05.2013, simultaneously the petitioner was directed to vacate the premises in question on or before 01.07.2013. Again, an application was filed by the petitioner seeking modification of the order dated 29th May, 2013 and this Court, upon hearing the counsel for the parties, modified its order and permitted the petitioner to vacate the premises in question positively on or before 1st August, 2013. Again, one application was moved for extension of time, which was rejected vide order dated 01.08.2013.
(3.) BY way of instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 01.05.2013 by which the petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 96,100/ - as rent w.e.f. 01.04.2012 to 30.04.2013, as well as order dated 13.05.2013 by which the Executive Engineer, Project Division, Rishikesh requested the District Magistrate, Dehradun to recover the amount of Rs. 95,100/ - from the petitioner.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.