RADHEY SHYAM AGARWAL Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order dated 23rd February, 1982, passed by the District Magistrate Banda, in the purported exercise of powers under Section 3 of the U.P. Storage Requisition Act, 1955, whereby the property mentioned in Schedule A to order had been requisitioned.

(2.) INDISPUTABLY the property, which is the subject matter of requisition was in the tenancy of the State Government and the State Government treated the Petitioner as its lessor and paid rent for the accommodation to the Petitioner. The Petitioner instituted a suit for ejectment of the State Government from the accommodation in question. The suit was pending when the impugned order was passed. Thereafter the suit was decreed.

(3.) IN paragraph 15 of the writ petition it has been categorically averred that no opportunity whatsoever was afforded to the Petitioner before the impugned order was passed. A counter affidavit has been filed by Sri B.K. Saxena, the Senior Marketing Inspector , Banda. In really to paragraph 15 it is averred in this affidavit that the fact that an order of requisition was about to be passed was brought to the notice of the Petitioner by the Respondents we may indicate that there are five Respondents before us and they are the District Magistrate Banda, the U.P. State, through Collector, Banda, the Regional Food Controller, Jhansi, the Deputy Regional Marketing Officer Banda and the Senior Marketing Inspector, Banda. It is significant to note that the particular Respondent, who brought the said fact to the notice of the Petitioner, has not been pin pointed in the affidavit. It is difficult to believe that all the five Respondents aforementioned either individually or jointly informed the Petitioner of the impending order of requisition. Even the Senior Marketing Inspector, who has sworn the affidavit, has not mustered courage to state that he informed the Petitioner that the order of requisition was about to be passed. It is implicit in the averments made by the Senior Marketing Inspector that no written information was given to the Petitioner that an order of requisition was about to be passed and he may give his version to the District Magistrate. We are satisfied that, infact, the Petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to lodge his objection against the proposed order of requisition.