- (1.) THE present petition has been preferred mainly against the order passed by concerned respondent authorities for declaration of auction of the property, which was given to the petitioner in the year 1996. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that despite the order passed by this Court in a writ petition bearing W.P. (C) No. 4859 of 2004 dated 7th July, 2006, that inquiry must be held, notice must be issued and opportunity of being heard ought to be given, no opportunity of being heard has been given by the concerned respondent authorities. However, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that only a show cause notice was issued and reply has been given by the petitioner thereafter, no personal hearing has been given by the respondent authorities, no conclusion has been arrived at by the respondent authorities in spite of vital orders of sub -lease or selling of the shops in question. The order has been passed by this Court in aforesaid writ petition dated 7th July, 2006. Notices were issued on 14th September 2006 (Annexure -3 to the memo of the petition) and the same was replied but no opportunity of being heard, no detailed speaking order has been passed that who subletted the property, to whom and what is the rent and where is the evidence, nothing has been mentioned but directly a conclusion is arrived at, that shop in question ought to be reauctioned. Therefore, the order/decision at Annexure -4 deserves to be quashed and set aside.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the respondents, who has submitted that in pursuance of the order passed in W.P. (C) No. 4859 of 2004 order dated 7th July, 2006, inquiry was started and show cause notice was given and the same was never replied by the petitioner nor he has participated in any other proceedings and, therefore, no speaking order has been passed by the respondents and now a decision has been taken for auctioning of the State Of Jharkhand Through Director General Of Police Versus Thakur Ajit Kumar shops in question. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the present petitioner was given in auction shop in question since 1996. There are allegations against the petitioner that the shop in question was never operated by him, and he has given it on sub - letting to someone else, which is not permissible under the conditions upon which the shop was given on rent. It appears that constantly, the petitioner is ventilating his grievance that they have never given the shop on rent to anyone else. Looking to the reply at Annexure -5, it appears that in a partnership, some business was going on and financial help have taken by them. It also appears that there is no detailed speaking order, which reveals the fact that when the property was given on sub -letting and to whom, what is the amount of rent, who is presently in possession of the shop. There is no evidence or discussion at all. There is no detailed speaking order.
(3.) IN view of these facts, I hereby direct concerned respondent authorities to pass a speaking order after giving personal hearing to the petitioner on the aforesaid aspect. I hereby also direct petitioner to remain personally present on 18th May at 10:30 a.m. before respondent no. 3, who will give an adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and meanwhile the petitioner is permitted to file reply of the show cause notice or he may file reply on 18th May, 2009, before respondent no. 3, thereafter, respondent no. 3 is directed to give his own time table for hearings, if so required. Till then, status quo with regard to the possession as well as ownership of shop in question shall be maintained and no charge will be created upon the said shop by the petitioner.;