Allahabad High Court
Narendra Prasad Tiwari And ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 18 September, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:59756
Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7453 of 2023
Petitioner :- Narendra Prasad Tiwari And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Madan Gopal Tripathi,Sachichida Nand Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Faiz Ahmad Khan
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
1. Vakalatnama filed by Shri Faiz Ahmad Khan, Advocate, on behalf of private opposite party No.3 and 5 is taken on record.
2. Heard.
3. On 29.08.2023, following order was passed:-
" Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents and Shri Faiz Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the caveator.
Challenge has been made to order dated 03.08.2023 passed by the respondent no.2/Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, District-Gonda in Revision No. 934/2023, Computerized Case No. C202308000000934 (Jaskaran Mishra and Others Vs. Narendra Kumar Tiwari and Others) whereby the respondent no. 2 directed the parties to maintain status quo.
Challenging the order dated 03.08.2023, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that prior to the date on which impugned order was passed the revision, in issue, was fixed on 20.07.2023 and on 20.07.2023, the respondent no. 2 admitted the revision and declined to provide interim protection to the revisionist(s) in specific terms which is evident from the order dated 20.07.2023. The revisional authority specifically observed that no case for interim protection is made out. Thereafter, the revision was fixed on 03.08.2023 and on this date vide the impugned order, the interim protection has been granted. The impugned order is completely non-speaking. It does not reflect in what circumstances the interim protection is being granted to the revisionist(s) i.e. respondent nos. 3 & 4 in the present petition, as such the indulgence of this Court is required.
Shri Faiz Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the caveator/respondent no. 4 has opposed the present petition.
The impugned order dated 03.08.2023, being relevant, is produced herein-under:
"03.08.2023:- ???????? ????????? ????????? ?? ??????? ???????? ?? ????? ??????? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ????????? ????? ??????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????? 17.08.2023 ?? ??? ???"
It is undisputed that on 20.07.2023, the revision was admitted and revisional authority/respondent no. 2 declined to grant the interim protection to the revisionist(s) and the matter was fixed for 03.08.2023 and on this date, the impugned order, quoted above, has been passed, which is a non-speaking order, as such this Court is of the view that indulgence of this Court is required.
At this stage, Shri Faiz Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the caveator/respondent no. 4 prays that he may be permitted forty eight hours' time to prepare the case.
Accordingly, list/put up this case on 04.09.2023.
Till the next date of listing, the implementation and operation of impugned order dated 03.08.2023, Annexure No. 1 to the petition, shall remain stayed. "
4. Undisputedly, the impugned order dated 03.08.2023 is a non-speaking order. Though, as per law settled, the reasons, being heart beat of an order, should be assigned even by administrative authorities while passing the order. On the issue of requirement of recording of reasons, reference can be made to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin and Another in Civil Appeal No.1374 of 2008.
5. Considering the aforesaid, this Court finds it appropriate to interfere in the impugned order dated 03.08.2023. Accordingly, the order dated 03.08.2023 passed by respondent No.2-Commissioner, Devi Patan Division, Gonda, District-Gonda is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to opposite party No.2 to decide the application for interim protection afresh by a reasoned and speaking order, without granting any adjournment to the parties of the proceedings, expeditiously and opposite party No.2 is further directed to decide the revision within three months from the next date fixed in the matter i.e. 21.09.2023.
6. The petitioners, who are present, would put their appearance on the next date fixed in the case.
7. In case, the petitioners fail to put in appearance before the opposite party No.2, the opposite party No.2 shall proceed ex-parte and decide the revision within time specified.
8. On apprehension of the counsel for the side opposite, Shri Madan Gopal Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners says that the petitioners would not change the nature of the land during the pendency of the revision.
9. The petition is allowed in aforesaid terms.
Order Date :-18.9.2023
Raj
