- (1.) S. P. Mehrotra, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia praying for quashing the order dated 5-5-1999 (Annexure No. 9 to the writ petition) passed by the Prescribed Authority, Moradabad and the order dated 1-2-2003 (Annexure No. 11 to the writ petition) passed by the Appellate Authority (learned District Judge, Court No. 3), Moradabad.
(2.) THE dispute relates to a shop situated in Mohalla Kathghar/garikhana, Moradabad, the details whereof have been given in the release application referred to hereinafter. THE said shop has hereinafter been referred to as the "disputed shop. " THE petitioner has, inter alia filed the following supplementary affidavits in this writ petition: (1) First Supplementary Affidavit sworn on 5-3-2003. (2) Second Supplementary Affidavit sworn on 6-3-2003. (3) Third Supplementary Affidavit sworn on 12-3-2003. From the allegations made in the writ petition and the affidavits filed on behalf of the petitioner, it appears the the respondent filed a release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (also referred to, in short as "the Act") against the petitioner for release of the disputed shop. It was inter alia alleged by the respondent in the said release application that the respondent wanted to start the businesses of general merchant after his retirement from irrigation department, and that the need of the respondent for the disputed shop for starting the business of general merchant was urgent and genuine, and that on comparison of hardships, the petitioner would not suffer any hardship as the petitioner could shift his business to his own shop while in case of rejection of the release application, the respondent would be put to much greater hardship. The said release application was registered as PA Case No. 8 of 1997. Copy of the said release application has been filed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. The petitioner contested the said release application and filed his written statement, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition.
(3.) BOTH the sides filed evidence in support of their respective cases. The learned Prescribed Authority, Moradabad by the judgment and order dated 5-5-1999 allowed the said release application in respect of the disputed shop. It was, inter alia held by the learned Prescribed Authority that the need of the respondent for the disputed shop was real and bona fide. It was, inter alia, further held by the learned Prescribed Authority that on comparison of hardships, the respondent would suffer much greater hardship in case of rejection of the release application than would be suffered by the petitioner in case, the release application was allowed.;