MUSTAQ ALI Vs. VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manu Saxena, Advocate, appearing for respondent No. 3.

(2.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 17.8.2000 whereby the appeal filed by the contesting respondent was allowed and the petitioner was directed to hand over possession of the building after reconstruction within one month from the date of the order.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that on account of the financial constraint the building in question could not be reconstructed. For that reason, he was not in a position to hand over the possession to the respondent. The Appellate Authority had considered all aspects of the matter and thereafter passed the impugned order. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. No case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. However, it is observed that the petitioner will comply with the order passed by respondent No. 1 within two months from today.