AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Katju, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri S.R Gautam has appeared for the respondents.
The petitioner has challenged a showcause notice issued under Section 4 of U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act dated 10297 vide Annexure6 to the writ petition. The said notice is only a show cause notice and no final order has been passed against the petitioner. Hence, in my opinion this writ petition is premature and is hence liable to be dismissed, vide Executive Engineer v. Ramesh Kumar Singh 1995 (8) JT331.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Bikarama v. IVth Additional District Judge, Varanasi and others, 1984 (2) ARC 241. In my opinion, said decision does not help the petitioner. It has been held in that case in paragraph9 that the notice should state the ground on which the eviction of the petitioner is being sought. In the present case in Annexure6 to the writ petition the ground is mentioned that the petitioner is an unauthorised occupant of some property belonging to the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Varanasi. The details of the property have been given in the said notice.
In my opinion, in such matters one has to look at the show cause notice, and on a fair construction of the same, if it appears that the opposite party has been informed of the allegation on the basis of which some order is proposed to be passed against him then the Court should not exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution in such matters. In my opinion, the notice dated 10297 clearly informs the petitioner of the ground on which an order is proposed to be passed.
Whatever the petitioner wishes to say he should say before the prescribed authority under the Act. The decision in Bikarama''s case (supra) has to be confined to the facts of that case, and it cannot be said to have laid down a general proposition of law that a notice of the kind which is assailed in the present writ petition will be held to be a valid notice. The writ petition is dismissed.
However, it is open to the petitioner to take all the ground which he wishes to take before the prescribed authority under the Act.
Flips of this order may be provided to the parties within two days on the payment of the usual charges.