Allahabad High Court
Sudhir Chandra vs State Of U.P. And 14 Others on 8 August, 2022
Bench: Prakash Padia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22669 of 2022
Petitioner :- Sudhir Chandra
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 14 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar Gupta
Counsel for Respondent :- CSC, Sanjeev Mishra Gana,Sher Bahadur Singh
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
The petitioner has preferred present writ petition inter-alia with the following prayer :-
"(i) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Bareilly Mandal, Bareilly, respondent no.2 to decide the time extension application as well as Appeal no.947/2021 being computer case no.C202112000000947 (Sudhir Chandra Vs. Nempal & others) u/s 24(4) U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, pending since dated 08-12-21 within stipulated time fixed by this Hon'ble Court in accordance with law."
It is argued by Sri Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner that in the proceedings initiated by the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Bareilly Division, Bareilly by filing an appeal being Appeal No.C202112000000947 under sub Section 4 of Section 24 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 an interim protection was granted in his favour on 22.12.2021. The appeal was admitted and parties were directed to maintain status quo till the next date of listing namely 21.2.2022, copy of the order is appended as annexure 13 to the writ petition. It is further argued that when the matter was listed on 21.02.2022 though an application was filed by the petitioner for extension of the aforesaid interim order but without recording any reasons interim protection was not extended.
It is further argued that interim order was rightly granted in favour of the petitioner and once the appeal was admitted and the interim protection was granted, same is liable to be extended.
The photo-copy of the order-sheets from 21.02.2022 to 26.07.2022 are placed before the Court, same is taken on record.
Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgement passed by the Supreme Court in case of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota Vs. M/s Shukla and Brothers reported at 2010 AIR SCW 3277 dealt with the principles of law while exercising power of judicial review on administrative action. It was held by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case that the doctrine of audi alteram partem has three basic essentials-
i) A person against whom an order is required to be passed or whose rights are likely to be affected adversely must be granted an opportunity of being heard.
ii) The concerned authority should provide a fair and transparent procedure.
iii) The authority concerned must apply its mind and dispose of the matter by a reasoned or speaking order.
Paragraph 9 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted below-
"9. The increasing institution of cases in all Courts in India and its resultant burden upon the Courts has invited attention of all concerned in the justice administration system. Despite heavy quantum of cases in Courts, in our view, it would neither be permissible nor possible to state as a principle of law, that while exercising power of judicial review on administrative action and more particularly judgment of courts in appeal before the higher Court, providing of reasons can never be dispensed with. The doctrine of audi alteram partem has three basic essentials. Firstly, a person against whom an order is required to be passed or whose rights are likely to be affected adversely must be granted an opportunity of being heard. Secondly, the concerned authority should provide a fair and transparent procedure and lastly, the authority concerned must apply its mind and dispose of the matter by a reasoned or speaking order. This has been uniformly applied by courts in India and abroad."
On the other hand it is argued by Sri Sanjeev Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.5 that the next date fixed in the matter before the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Bareilly Division, Bareilly is 16.08.2022 hence court below be directed to decide the matter on the said date.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue, the present petition stands disposed of finally with a direction to the respondent no.2-Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Bareilly Division, Bareilly to consider and decide the aforesaid application for extension of interim order in accordance with law on the next date fixed in the matter after hearing all the parties concerned. If on account of any reason no orders were passed on the aforesaid date, the decision will be taken on the aforesaid application preferably within a period of one month, thereafter. It is made clear that parties will not take any unnecessary adjournments.
Till 30.09.2022 or till the decision is taken on the application for interim protection, whichever is earlier, the interim order dated 22.12.2021 shall continue.
Order Date :- 8.8.2022
Pramod Tripathi
