AJAY BHARDWAJ AND ANOTHER Vs. PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While the present appeals are preferred against the common interlocutory order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3914 of 2018 and batch, Mr. Siddhartha Singh and Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellantswrit petitioners, and Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State Government, would submit that, instead of keeping the writ petitions pending on the file of this Court and modifying the orders under appeal, this Court may consider finally disposing of the writ petitions themselves. Consequently these three Special Appeals are heard, along with the three Writ Petitions, (from the interlocutory order passed in which these Special Appeals arise), and are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) In the common orders under appeal, the learned Single Judge observed that the writ petition was filed seeking a mandamus contending that the Public Works Department had forcefully encroached upon their private land, and had demolished a part of the construction for the purpose of widening NH-7 which was earlier numbered as NH 58; the procedure prescribed by law has not been followed; an interim order was passed on 21.12.2018 directing that no demolition should take place during the pendency of the writ petition; a counter affidavit was filed by the respondents wherein they had specifically pleaded that a notice, under Section 441 of the IPC, was issued on 24.09.2018; and in response to the notice, served on the appellants-writ petitioners on 16.09.2018, they had filed their objections on 17.12.2018.

(3.) The learned Single Judge further observed that the petitioners had approached this Court immediately after filing their objections on 17.12.2018, by filing the writ petitions on 21.12.2018 without disclosing the fact that a notice was already issued to them to which they had submitted their reply; on the other hand they had argued that the process was undertaken without due intimation; and it was evident that they had concealed facts, and had not come to Court with clean hands. The learned Single Judge, while granting the appellants-writ petitioners' time to file their rejoinder affidavit, vacated the interim order.