SOMLATA GOYAL Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition unfolds a very pathetic story how the litigation on behalf of the State of U.P. is being prosecuted in the High Court. Even-though in the office of the Chief Standing Counsel, notices are received on behalf of State of U.P. and its different Departments, but what to say of taking steps voluntarily, with a view to safeguard the interest of the State of U.P., even if some direction is given by the High Court, that is also not complied with. No counter affidavits are filed either at initial stage or when petition has been admitted and notices have been ordered to be issued. The officials entrusted with the litigation do not take even least interest even if heavy stakes are involved from the point of view of State. The directions from the court from time to time fall on the deaf ears of the State instrumentalities. It may be emphasised that on 6th Oct., 1980, on the date when the present petition was filed before Division Bench a direction was given by the Court to the Standing Counsel that a Counter Affidavit be filed by 28th Oct., 1980, and the petition was to be listed on that date. But no Counter Affidavit was filed by that date and the petition instead of being listed on 28th Oct., 1980, was listed on 10.12.1980. The Division Bench while admitting the petition and granting stay stated that no counter affidavit has been filed in-spite of time being granted. The court directed the Standing Counsel again on 10.12.1980 to file counter affidavit within a month, but till today after about twelve years, no counter affidavit has been filed and averments in the petition have not been controverted.

(2.) The instant petition has been filed by Smt. Somlata Goyal, under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, and the relief sought is for the issuance of a writ of Certiroari quashing the requisition notice dated 4th of Sept., 1980 (Annexure 6) issued under Sections 3 and 4 of the U.P. Accommodation Requisition Act (for short "the Act").

(3.) The factual Matrix of the case is that the petitioner is the owner of the accommodation D-160, Kamla Nagar, Agra, which was let out to Sri A.C. Nanda, Asstt. Income Tax Commissioner (Agra) who was transferred to Ahmadabad, as the accommodation was retained by the tenant, a notice under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, was served upon the owner and also upon the occupier. But it had been stated that no notice of the requisition under the Act was served on the owner vide para 10 of the petition.