HARI OM Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, I ADDITIONAL C.J., MATHURA AND ANOTHER
LAWS(ALL)-1990-8-80
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on August 01,1990

HARI OM Appellant
VERSUS
Prescribed Authority, I Additional C.J., Mathura And Another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

R.K. Gulati, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against interlocutory order dated 25 -1 -1990 contained in Annexure -7 to the writ petition, passed by the Prescribed Authority/Ist Additional Civil Judge, Mathura. The brief fact are these: the petitioner Hari Om is a tenant of a shop of which Smt. Sushila Devi, second respondent is owner and landlady. The second respondent has filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for the release of the accommodation under the tenancy of the petitioner on the ground that the same is needed for her personal use and occupation. Pending final decision, the petitioner filed an application dated 25 -1 -1990, Annexure -4 to the writ petition, requiring the Prescribed Authority to summon certain documents from the Labour Office and from the Office of the Food Inspector as well as file No. 264 from the office of U.P. Shop and Commercial Establishment The application for summoning the documents was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved by that order to petitioner has come up to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) PENDING admission of this writ petition the contesting respondent was served and Sri A.N. Bhargava has filed his appearance on behalf of the contesting respondent. He stated at the bar that the second respondent does not propose to file any counter -affidavit and the case may be disposed of on the basis of writ petition itself. As both the parties are represented and the case is ripe for hearing, it is in the interest of justice to dispose of the writ petition finally at the admission stage itself.
(3.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, in my opinion, the impugned order cannot be sustained in whole. So far as the request to summon the documents from the office of Food Inspector and Labour office is concerned, the same was rejected for good and sufficient reason, inasmuch as, the Prescribed Authority required the contesting respondent, namely the landlady, the second respondent to file her own affidavit and a map of the shop in which she was already carrying her business. This in the opinion of the Prescribed Authority would serve the purpose of the petitioner for which the documents were sought to be summoned from the two offices aforesaid. Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not advance any plausible argument to show that the order of the Prescribed Authority to the above extent is vitiated in any manner. Coming to the summoning of file No. 264 from the U.P. Shop and Commercial Establishment, the only reason given for declining the request is that there is no justification for summoning the same. The reason for which the said file was required has been explained in paragraph 9 of the writ petition. It is not necessary at this stage to go into that question, as this petition can succeed on another short ground. It cannot be disputed that the Prescribed Authority possesses the power to summon document, if the same is required for an effective decision in a case and it is in the interest of justice to do so. The power that the Prescribed Authority possess through discretionary, are judicial powers and the same cannot be exercised arbitrarily. It was incumbent upon the Prescribed Authority to give reason, howsoever brief, for declining the request to exercise that power when called upon to do so. No reason whatsoever, has been given in the impugned order. It is not enough to say that there is no justification to summon the document. The impugned order to this extent cannot be sustained as it is a non -speaking order, the application for restoration was dismissed on the ground that no satisfactory cause for default was shown. For what has been stated above, the writ petition is allowed in part. The impugned order is quashed. So far it relates to summoning of the file No. 264 from the office of U.P. Shop and Commercial Establishment. The Prescribed Authority is directed to dispose of the application of the petitioner afresh and in accordance with law, and in the light of the observations made above.;


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