Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner contended that lease of Respondent No. 5 was cancelled by this Court vide judgment dated 09.03.2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 48270 of 2004 directing the District Magistrate to act in accordance with law for settling the area afresh. There against Special Leave Petition No. 10842 of 2005 was dismissed by Apex Court though as infructuous yet the Respondent -State by means of impugned orders has granted lease of area in question for the period Respondent No. 5 could not work due to orders passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition. Miss Pushpila Bisht, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that this is not permissible in law in view of law laid down by this Court in Inam v. State of U.P. and Ors. : 2002 (3) AWC 1977, Bhola Prasad Nishad v. District Magistrate, Deoria and Ors. : 2003 (1) AWC 546, Vashisht Kumar Jaiswal v. State of U.P. and Ors. : AIR 2004 All 105, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8914 of 2006, Shanker Lal v. State of U.P. and Ors. decided on 18.04.2006, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2980(M/S) of 2006, M/s Suresh Kumar Pandey & Brothers and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. decided on 22.11.2006, Smt. Ram Lali Mishra v. State of U.P. and Ors. : AIR 2010 All 154, and Anees Khan v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2011 (11) ADJ 315 (DB)(LB).
(2.) SRI Prabhakar Singh, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 5 on the contrary submitted that since the Apex Court permitted Respondent No. 5 to raise his grievance before appropriate authority, therefore, it has the effect of empowering the State Government to sit over the judgment of this Court and to grant relief to Respondent No. 5. The matter requires consideration.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 5 prays for and is allowed a week's time to file counter affidavit. Respondents No. 1 to 4 are represented by learned Standing Counsel. He may also file counter affidavit, if any, within same period. Petitioner may file rejoinder affidavit, if any, within three days thereafter.;