Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Dhananjai Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 64058 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 5509 (10 November 2005)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).



With reference to paragraph 27 of the writ petition, counsel for the petitioner has made a statement that he has vacated  the official accommodation allotted to him in district Varanasi in the month of August, 2005 itself and he is no more in possession of the accommodation in dispute. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 16th January, 2002 passed in Special Appeal No. 51 of 2002, respondents were under legal obligation to have permitted the petitioner to continue at Varanasi itself and therefore, retention of the official accommodation of the petitioner at Varanasi even subsequent to his transfer at Ghazipur cannot attract penal rent. The total amount demanded is Rs. 47,320/-.

I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the writ petition.

It is no doubt true that the Division Bench of this court vide order dated 16th January, 2002 has provided that so long as departmental proceedings are continuing, the petitioner may be permitted to remain at Varanasi. It was further provided that the disciplinary proceedings  may be completed within four months as was directed by Hon'ble Singh Judge. The aforesaid part of the direction of this Court losses all significance once  the disciplinary authority took a decision to postpone the departmental proceedings in view of the fact that in respect of the same charge criminal proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner in competent court of law, and further since the petitioner himself proceeded on transfer to Ghazipur without any protest.  Therefore, the retention of the official accommodation at Varanasi by the petitioner even after transfer to Ghazipur (where the petitioner admittedly joined in the year, 2002) cannot be said to be legal and justified in any manner.

However, in the totality of the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be served if the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards use of the official accommodation at Varanasi for the period August, 2002 to August, 2005, within one month from today. In case of default in compliance of the aforesaid condition, it shall be open to respondents to recover the entire penal amount as directed under order dated 13.8.2005.

However, if the deposit so made, the respondent shall not insist upon the petitioner for payment of any further amount in pursuance of the order dated 13.8.2005.

writ petition stands disposed of.      




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.