Sai Maa Vishnu Shakti Trust And ... vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2019 Latest Caselaw 5866 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Court No. - 21
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 21307 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Sai Maa Vishnu Shakti Trust And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kumar Anish
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Ravi Prakash Pandey
 

 
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.

Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the first and second respondents and Sri Ravi Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the third to fifth respondents.

The grievance of the petitioners is that their map has been rejected by the Varanasi Development Authority (for short, the 'Authority') without giving any opportunity.

The petitioners have earlier preferred an appeal before the Chairman, Varanasi Development Authority, which was disposed of vide order dated 20th August, 2018, wherein following directions have been issued:

"6& mijksDrkuqlkj fd, x, fo'ys"k.k ,oa of.kZr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij vk{ksfir vkns'k fnukad 23&05&2018 fujLr djrs gq, okjk.klh fodkl izkf/kdj.k dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd vihykFkhZ dks 'keu ekufp=] Hkw&LokfeRo izek.k&i= ,oa vU; lqlaxr vfHkys[k nkf[ky djus gsrq ,d ekg dk volj nsdj iqu%ijh{k.k dj fy;k tk;sA ;fn vihykFkhZ }kjk ,d ekg ds vUnj 'keu ekufp=] Hkw&LokfeRo izek.k&i= ,oa vU; lqlaxr vfHkys[k izLrqr ugha fd;k tkrk gS] rks ;g vkns'k Lor% fu"izHkkoh gks tk,xkA fodkl izkf/kdj.k iz'uxr ikfjr vius vkns'k ds vuq:i dk;Zokgh lqqfuf'pr djsaA rnuqlkj ;g vihy fuLrkfjr dh tkrh gSA vkns'k dh izekf.kr izfr fodkl izkf/kdj.k dks Hksth tk;A ckn vko';d dk;Zokgh vihyh; i=koyh lafpr vfHkys[kkxkj dh tk;A"

The petitioners in paragraph-28 of the writ petition have made an averment that the impugned order dated 17th May, 2019 has been passed without furnishing any opportunity to them.

We had granted time to learned counsel for the Authority to seek instruction in the matter. He has received the instruction, which is taken on record. Reply to paragraph-28 of the writ petition in the instruction is totally vague and general and it has not denied the facts mentioned in the writ petition.

Moreover, from a perusal of the order impugned it appears to us that the opportunity has not been furnished to the petitioners.

In view of the said facts, we direct the fourth respondent to pass a fresh order after furnishing opportunity to the petitioners. The said exercise be undertaken within three months from the date of communication of this order. Needless to say that till the decision is taken by the fourth respondent, no coercive step shall be taken against the petitioners.

It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The authority concerned shall pass the order independently and in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

Order Date :- 9.7.2019

SKT/-