VIJAY KUMAR Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE BIJNOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The opposite party No. 3 filed an application for release under Section 21 (a) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, being P.A. Case No. 7 of 1998 before the prescribed authority. Bijnor. The premises in dispute is a shop In Sadar Bazar, Bijnor. The application for release was allowed by the prescribed authority. Bijnor on 18.1.2001, by judgment. Annexure-19 to the petition. Against that order, the petitioner filed Appeal No. 3 of 2001. The appeal has also been dismissed on 23.3.2001, by judgment, Annexure-20 to the petition. The petitioner, therefore, has preferred this petition invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the request that both the above orders be quashed and the application for release be dismissed.

(2.) I have heard Sri M.K. Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sankatha Rai and Sri Vinod Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.

(3.) It is contended that the need alleged is for settling the respondent No. 3 in the business. It is also alleged that he is without any work and is 29 years of age. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the business intended to be started in the shop has not been disclosed In the application for release or in the affidavits. That the opposite party No. 3 has also applied for service and got himself registered in the Employment Office. That, therefore, he intends to Join service. It is further contended that in the appellate court. It was for the first time disclosed that respondent No. 3 wants to run the business of P.C.O. It has been argued that even if the need is held to be bonafide, the half of the shop is sufficient for the proposed business of P.C.O. and. therefore, only half of the shop may be released.