Mithlesh Sharma vs State of U.P.and Others

The Petitioner is a Mukhya Sevika Child Development, presently working with respondent No.3 at Saharanpur, who has recently joined there after her transfer back from Meerut to Saharanpur. During her earlier posting, a Government accommodation bearing House No.D14, situate in Official Colony, Saharanpur was allotted in her favour. On her transfer to Meerut, the said accommodation was allotted to some one else and subsequent to it to Respondent No.4 and the respondent District Magistrate had asked her to vacate the aforesaid accommodation vide order dated 8.7.2005, Annexure 1 to the writ petition. Copy of the allotment letter is on record as Annexure C.A.1.

Since the petitioner did not vacate the house in question, the District Magistrate, Saharanpur had directed the Tehsildar Saharanpur vide order dated 28.10.2005, Annexure C.A.1 on the record, to deliver its actual possession to respondent No.4 with a further direction that the belongings, if any, of the petitioner, kept in the house, be shifted to a room therein. The respondent No.4, subsequently, obtained the actual possession of the house in question vide order dated 8.11.2005, Annexure C.A.3 on the record, through the Naib Tehsildar in consonance whereof, she was also asked to take away her belongings which were placed under seal by the Naib Tehsildar in a room of that house. Notwithstanding, the appellant did not remove her belongings despite directions sent by her superior officer, Meerut to her on 24.2.2006 and thereafter also by the District Magistrate, Saharanpur on 18.2.2006 to her for taking away her belongings therefrom, otherwise, she will be liable for action, The appellant only took away some of her belonging on 13.11.2005, kept in the sealed room after obtaining the permission for it from the concerned authority, also giving anunder takings dated 13.11.2005, that she will take away her belongings and will hand over vacant possession of the said room to respondent No.4 on 20.11.2005. since, she did not yield to the directions of the District Magistrate, Saharanpur and her superiors at Meerut, the District Magistrate, Saharanpur passed an order on 29.3.2006, Annexure C.A.6 on the record, that her belongings kept in the room of the house be removed and be kept in the Tehsil which the Tehsildar complied with on 1.4.2006 and delivered the vacant possession of the aforesaid room to respondent No.4.

The petitioner filed this petition before this Court on 12.4.2006 without impleading Respondent No.4 at the present alleging she was in possession of the aforesaid house where her belongings were sealed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 the foresaid house was allotted by the respondent District Magistrate to one Satendra Kumar on 27.7.2005 but he was not in it''s possession. Since she is back again from Meerut to Saharanpur vide order dated 28.3.2006, Annexure C.A.7 on the record, the house be reallotted in her name praying also that the actions proposed against her for not vacating the house by the Additional District Magistrate, District Magistrate on 24.2.2006 and by District Program Officer, district Meerut on 18.2.2006, Annexures 8 and 9 of the writ petition, be quashed.

This Court had granted an interim order in her favour on 21.4.2006, vide which the District Magistrate, Saharanpur was directed to allot the aforesaid accommodation to the petitioner, which was stated by her to be in her possession and to deliver possession of the room by removing the seal, within a period of one week. Pursuant to this order, the District Magistrate, Saharanpur vide his detailed order dated 12.5.2006, which forms the part of the counter affidavit of respondent No.4, has realloted the house in the name of the petitioner, specifically mentioning that the respondent No.4 is in actual possession of the house.

We have heard Sri Krishna Mohan Tripathi and Sri A.R. Nadiwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 and learned standing counsel appearing for the other respondents.

It will thus appear from the facts stated above that the petitioner not only placed wrong facts before this Court but tried to mislead the Court deliberately by alleging in her petition, that she was in possession of the house in question. On this ground alone, she becomes disentitled to any relief from the Court.

The house had already been allotted to the respondent No.4 and possession of the same had also been given to him and it was the Tehsildar who delivered the possession. The District Magistrate reported about the fact of possession having been given to respondent No.4 and his possession thereon. There seems, therefore, no ground or justification whatsoever to the petitioner to demand that the house be reallotted to her because she has been retransferred to Saharanpur and it is for the administration authority to provide accommodation to the said employee and it was for the respondent District Magistrate to deal with the request for allotment of the house to the petitioner.

Bringing such trivia to the High Court itself needs reprimand. The High Court is not supposed to adjudicate on such small and routine matters like allotment of a quarter to subordinate staff. These matters, should be left to administration machinery and if the employee has any complaint, he has to approach the higher authorities for the said purpose.

It is being observed that the jurisdiction of the High Court is being want only misused. Such petty matters should not engage serious consideration at the High Court level. They should be left to administration machinery for being sorted out. This is another ground which will independently justify rejection of the writ petition.

On merits also, it will appear what has been mentioned above that the petitioner has no case. Since possession had already been given to respondent No.4, subsequent to allotment in his favour, which the petitioner concealed by not stating in her writ petition and also by not impleading the respondent No.4 as one of the respondent, while filing the writ petition, the petitioner is not entitled to claim that the same house be allotted to her. She does not hold the lien on the house, and the fact of her retransfer to Saharanpur also does not entitle her reallotment of the same house. Since the petitioner has spoken brazen lies, we deem it proper to leave it for the appropriate authority to consider whether action should be taken against her or not, on the basis of orders dated 24.2.2006 and 18.2.2006.

With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed.

(Petition dismissed)