ABDUL RASHID MIR Vs. ADDL D J VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. B. Srivastava, J. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard. The question which are sought to be canvassed by means of this writ petition are that the R. C. and E. O. has not complied with the order of this Court to decide the question of applicability or otherwise of Act 13 of 1972 to the building in question and that he had no right to order inspection, muchless and order to break open lock for the said purpose.

(2.) THERE is nothing in the order dated 18-4-1994 of this Court in Writ Petition No. 14025 of 1994 (Annexure '4') which may go to indicate that local inspection could not have been ordered of the premises in question. As far as the determination of the question, whether Act 13 of 1972 is applicable, is concerned, the stage is not over. Obviously in view of the order dated 18-4-1994 the R. C. and E. O, will decide the same as the first question and in case he finds the Act not applicable, the other questions need not be decided. Con versely if he finds the Act applicable, the other issues will also be decided on merit.

(3.) THE writ petition is accordingly dismissed. In view of the under taking given on behalf of the petitioner, however, it is directed that the order of breaking open lock be not implemented at the first instance. Prior intima tion of the date and time of inspection may be given by the R. C. and E. O. to both the parties, or their counsel, and the petitioner shall at the said date and time be present and co- operate with the inspection. In case it is not so done the order of breaking open lock may be implemented by the R. C. and E. O. indicating the brief reasons. Petition dismissed. .