Allahabad High Court
Bhullu Mahavidyalaya And Another vs State Of U P And 4 Others on 14 February, 2023
Bench: Chandra Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22678 of 2022
Petitioner :- Bhullu Mahavidyalaya And Another
Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Tiwari,Awadhesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- CSC,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
Heard Mr. Awadesh Kumar Singh, Counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. Anil Kumar Tiwari, Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents.
The instant writ petition has been filed praying for a mandamus directing respondent No.3, Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil Jakhaniya, District Ghazipur to decide the stay application filed in appeal for quashing the order dated 4.7.2022 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 38 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as well as to decide the stay application in pending appeal No. C202214000001284 of 2022 and till the disposal of the stay application, the status quo be maintained.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner No.1 is an institution and is imparting education to the students. He further submitted that before consolidation Court, the dispute arose and ultimately Writ B. No. 4061 of 2022 was filed before this Court at the instance of the petitioner which was entertained and interim protection was granted on 7.7.2022 which runs as follows:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Goan Sabha, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the State and perused the record.
Grievance of the petitioner is that a highly belated restoration application dated 16.8.2020 filed against the order dated 13.6.2006 has illegally been allowed without properly considering the sufficiency of cause of delay.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the order dated 13.6.2006 was passed after hearing learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha and State but in the impugned order Deputy Director of Consolidation has given perverse finding that the order dated 13.6.2006 was passed ex-parte without hearing to the counsel for the Gaon Sabha and the State.
In paragraph 7 of the supplementary affidavit, it is specifically stated that the DGC (Revenue) was present and has submitted his argument on behalf of the State through Collector and has been given full opportunity of hearing before passing the order dated 13.6.2006.
The matter requires consideration.
Respondents No. 1, 2, 3 and 5 are represented through learned standing counsel and respondent No. 4, Gaon Sabha is represented through Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, Advocate, who have prayed for and are granted three weeks' time to file counter affidavit in the present matter. Two weeks thereafter is granted to the petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit, if any.
List this matter on 22.8.2022.
Till the next date of listing, the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 6.6.2022 shall remain stayed."
He further submitted that proceeding in respect to petitioner's plot under Section 38 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been initiated which is not maintainable. He further submitted that impugned order under Section 38 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been passed which has been assailed by the petitioner through aforementioned appeal No. C202214000001284 of 2022 before the Commissioner which is pending. The stay application filed in the aforementioned appeal is also pending. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the meantime, the authorities have passed the illegal order for withdrawing the recognition of the petitioner as well as the counselling of the students have been also stopped on the basis of the order impugned in the appeal under Section 38 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that necessary direction be issued for the disposal of the petitioner's appeal and interim protection be granted against the impugned order in the appeal before Commissioner. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the career of students who are getting education in the institution will be affected, as such, the interim protection till the disposal of the petitioner's appeal is required in the matter. He further placed reliance upon judgment of Apex Court reported in 1983 UPLBEC 519 Mool Chand yadav and another Versus Raja Buland Sugar Company Ltd. Rampur and others in which it has been held that if order under appeal has serious consequences then interim protection be granted.
On the other hand, Mr. Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel as well as Counsel for the Gaon Sabha submitted that since the appeal is pending before the respondent No.2 as petitioner should take appropriate remedy in the pending appeal in place of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
There is no dispute about the fact that appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is pending before the respondent No.2.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances coupled with the fact that petitioner No. 1 is educational institution and students are getting education, as such, the interest of justice requires that appeal filed by the petitioner be decided expeditiously and till the disposal of petitioner's appeal the operation of the order dated 4.7.2022 passed by Upziladhikari Ghazipur be suspended.
In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above as well as in view of ratio of law laid down in Mool Chand Yadav (Supra), the instant writ petition is finally disposed of directing the respondent No.2 to decide the aforementioned appeal expeditiously preferably within period of two months and till disposal of the appeal by respondent No.2, the operation of the order dated 4.7.2022 passed by Upziladhikari shall remain in abeyance.
Order Date :- 14.2.2023
Vandana Y.
