SHAILENDRA NATH MISHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 15.1.2001, contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

(3.) The respondent No. 3 British India Corporation Limited (B.I.C.) was an associate of Cawnpore Sugar Works Limited. The Chairman of B.I.C. was also Chairman of Cawnpore Sugar Works Limited. It is alleged in para 5 of the writ petition that the petitioner was initially appointed in Cawnpore Sugar Works Limited in 1980. Thereafter, he was transferred to several places. The house in question, which belongs to B.I.C. was allotted to the petitioner in the year 1997, as has been stated in para 7 of the writ petition, being House No. 14/104. This was allotted free of cost to the petitioner, who was the General Manager of the Cawnpore Sugar Works Limited at that time. It was provided in his capacity as an officer of the company. Subsequently, in the year 1998, the petitioner was appointed as an Additional Director of the said Company, as is stated in para 9 of the writ petition (vide Annexure-3 to the writ petition).