Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DR. NAGMA ZAI versus THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, AZAMGARH AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Dr. Nagma Zai v. The District Magistrate, Azamgarh And Another - WRIT - C No. 18437 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 16310 (19 September 2006)

 

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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon.R.P.Misra, J.

Hon.Shishir Kumar, J.

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order-dated 30.12.2005 passed by respondent No.1 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition).  Further prayer is for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the entire amount deposited by the petitioner along with interest @ 18% per annum.

The facts arising out of the writ petition are that on the basis of an advertisement dated 13.7.2000 published in the newspaper by the respondent No.1 inviting the persons to participate in the auction scheduled to be held on 31.7.2000 for mining lease of sand.  The petitioner was eligible and participated in the auction proceedings and being the highest bidder was allotted Plots Nos.1 and 2 of Tehsil Sagari District Azamgarh and as required has deposited Rs.88,500/- .  It appears that due to the pendency of some Special Leave Petition the State Government withheld the finalization of the lease.  The auction deed was not confirmed by the State and subsequently, on the basis of the re-auction notice another auction was held and one Rajesh Sharma was given the said auction as he was the highest bidder and has deposited Rs.,88,500/- but the lease was not approved by the State Government, as such, he has submitted an application for refund of the said amount with interest but the District Magistrate has not initiated any action and has not refunded the said amount.  Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondents the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No.5219 of 2003 which was finally disposed of by this Court on 8.9.2005 directing the petitioner to file a representation before respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 was directed to decide the same by a speaking order.  The petitioner submits that the District Magistrate has rejected the representation of the petitioner and has held that the petitioner is not entitled for refund of the said amount as the petitioner immediately after depositing of the amount of Rs.88,500/- started the mining work.  Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Magistrate, the petitioner has approached this Court.

In spite of the time granted by this Court no counter affidavit has been filed.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and have perused the record.

From the order passed by the District Magistrate it clearly appears that there is no dispute that auction which was held on 30.7.2000, the petitioner was the highest bidder and had deposited Rs.88,500/-.  It is also not disputed in the counter affidavit that the said auction bid was not finalized/ approved by the State Government.  But only the plea taken in the order is that immediately after auction dated 30.7.2000 the petitioner has started mining work and a notice to that effect was given, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled for the amount claimed.  We are of the view that in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case that as the bid was not finalized and admittedly, the petitioner deposited the amount, there is noting on record to show that if the petitioner has started the mining lease immediately after auction, what action has been taken by the respondents to stop the illegal mining.  In the counter affidavit filed in the earlier writ petition nothing has been stated.

In view of the aforesaid fact, the order passed by the District Magistrate dated 30.12.2005 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed.

The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 30.12.2005 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed and a mandamus is issued to the District Magistrate, Azamgarh  to refund the amount of Rs.88,500/- to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 8% per annum within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.

No order as to costs.        

19.9.2006

V.Sri/-

W.P. No. 18437 of 2006


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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