High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Laxmi Narain Srivastava v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 28379 of 1998  RD-AH 12002 (16 July 2007)
"Court No. 10"
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.28379 of 1998.
Laxmi Narain Srivastava
State of U.P. and others
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.
Hon'ble Sabhajeet Yadav, J.
By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :-
"i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order/notice dated 27.7.98 (Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 1, Joint Secretary, Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasi.
ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner from his House No. E-163, Ashok Vihar/Pahadia Fase II, Varanasi.
iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to provide the correct amount/account regarding the petitioner's house No. E-163, Ashok Vihar/Pahadia Fase II, Varanasi.
iv) issue any other and further writ, order or direction in the nature which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
The prayer no. 1 is for quashing of the impugned order/notice dated 27th July, 1998, Annexure-'10' to the writ petition, whereby the allotment of the accommodation in question in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that the petitioner has not ad heard to time schedule of the payment of instalments despite repeated opportunity has been given to the petitioner. The petitioner has set up the case in the writ petition that before passing of the aforesaid impugned order, he has already deposited the entire amount with regard to the accommodation in question. This statement of the petitioner cannot be relied upon in view of his own statement made in paragraph 15 of the writ petition, which is reproduced below :-
"15. That it is very relevant to point out here that before cancellation of allotment, the petitioner had deposited Rs.1000.00 on 27.3.98 and after that the petitioner again deposited Rs.10000.00 on 04.8.98 and further he deposited Rs.10000.00 on 12.8.98 in favour of Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasi on account of allotment of his House No. E-163 Pahadia Fase II in Varanasi."
This clearly demonstrates that the petitioner's own case is that he has paid entire amount is not correct and also the amount has been paid after cancellation of the allotment of the accommodation in question. Thus, this is disputed questions of fact, which cannot be looked into by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the law laid down in the case reported in (2004) 4 S.C.C., 268 - U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. and others Vs. U.P. Rajya Setu Nigam S. Karamchari Sangh.
In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Dated : 16.07.2007.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.