Allahabad High Court
Smt. Priyanka Bajpai And Another vs The Distt. Magistrate Lko. And 7 ... on 24 May, 2023
Bench: Vivek Chaudhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:36437
Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3810 of 2023
Petitioner :- Smt. Priyanka Bajpai And Another
Respondent :- The Distt. Magistrate Lko. And 7 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Uma Shankar Sahai
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhinav Pankaj,Smt. Shikha Srivastava
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondent no.1 and Sri Abhinav Pankaj, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.
Petitioners have approached this Court challenging the order dated 26.04.2023 passed by the District Magistrate, Lucknow. By the impugned order, the District Magistrate, Lucknow has directed eviction of petitioner no.1, petitioner no.2, her minor son aged about five years as well as her parental relatives, under Section 22 of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and Uttar Pradesh Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2014.
By order dated 12.05.2023, this Court required the learned Standing Counsel to produce the original records from the Court of District Magistrate, Lucknow in the present case i.e. Case No.1607 of 2023 (Computerized No. D202310460001607) "Smt. Usha Bajpai Vs. Smt. Priyanka Bajpai and others". Learned Standing Counsel has placed the said entire record of the case before this Court.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the order-sheet shows that the parties appeared on 20.04.2023 and without exchange of pleadings they were required to file their submissions in writing by the next day i.e. on 21.04.2023 and without any further reference or hearing of parties the judgment was delivered on 26.4.2023. He submits that the proceedings are in violation of principles of natural justice as without even exchange of pleadings between the parties they were required to submit their written arguments and judgment was delivered. The procedure adopted by the District Magistrate, Lucknow does not provide for a proper opportunity to submit their pleadings and evidence by the parties and opportunity of hearing.
Learned counsel for respondent no.2, Sri Abhinav Pankaj states that the District Magistrate, Lucknow heard the parties on 20.04.2023 and thereafter also permitted them to file the written submissions and passed the order. Hence, there is no illegality in the order passed by the District Magistrate, Lucknow/respondent no.1.
The order sheet of original record shows that on 20.04.2023, respondent had appeared before the District Magistrate for the first time and petitioners were were asked to submit their submissions in writing by 21.04.2023 and the case was directed to be put up on 26.04.2023 for delivery of order and on 26.04.2023, impugned order was delivered. A perusal of the record also shows that Vakalatnama was filed on 20.04.2023 only and written reply/submission was filed on 21.04.2023. It is beyond understanding as to how the District Magistrate, Lucknow proceeded in the matter in such a callous manner. It goes without saying that in any judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding, it is incumbent upon the authority concerned to give parties sufficient time for exchange of pleadings and thereafter fix a date for hearing and pass order thereafter. In this case, neither any appropriate time was granted to the parties for exchange of pleadings nor any time was granted to them to prepare their case after exchange of pleadings for hearing and make their submissions. Therefore, the procedure adopted by the District Magistrate is alien to law and cannot be permitted. It violates all the principles of natural justice.
Thus, the impugned order dated 26.04.2023 passed by the District Magistrate cannot stand and is set aside.
The matter is remanded back to the authority concerned to decide the same in accordance with law after exchange of pleadings/evidence and hearing all the parties, including on the question of maintainability, expeditiously, if possible, within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.
The writ petition is allowed.
(Vivek Chaudhary,J.)
Order Date :- 24.5.2023
Arjun/-
