SHITLA PRASAD Vs. SURAJ NARAIN LAL AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This special appeal is directed against the judgment of Hon'ble S.G. Manchanda, J., dated 19.8.1965 allowing writ petition No. 1210 of 1963 filed by the Respondent Suraj Narairi Lal. The Appellant is the allotted of the premises in dispute. The Respondent No. 1 Suraj Narain Lai claims to be a former allotted of the premises in dispute. Suraj Narain Lal filed a writ petition No. 1210 of 1963 in this Court and prayed that the order of the State Government dated 28.12.1962 be quashed. The ground of which the writ petition was pressed was that the State Government had not applied its mind to the fact as to whether or not the premises were actually vacant. Manchanda, J. was of the opinion that considering all the circumstances of the case it did appear that the State Government had not considered the question as to whether or not the premises were vacant. He, therefore, allowed writ petition, quashed the order of the State Government dated 28 -12 -1962 and left it open to the State Government "to reconsider the revision application and pass such order as it deem fit in accordance with law". He also directed that the Appellant shall not be ejected from the premises is dispute for three months from the date of his order.

(2.) We have heard Mr. Vir Bhadra Pratap Singh on behalf of the Appellant. He has contended that the law did not require the State Government to pass a speaking order. For this he has placed enhance upon Vinod Chandra Maheshwari v/s. State of U.P. and Anr. (1), 1965 ALJ 740). Mr. Justice Manchanda did not allow, the writ petition on the ground that the State Government was bound to pass a speaking order and since it had not done so the order of the State Government dated 28 -12 -1962 was liable to be quashed. He decided the writ petition on the ground that from the circumstances appearing in the case it appeared that the State Government "had not applied its mind to the question whether or not the premises in dispute were vacant. This is a question of fact rather, than a question of law and Vinod Chandra Maheshwari v/s. State of U.P. and another's case does not deal with this aspect of the matter. In our opinion the learned Single Judge had the jurisdiction to decide whether or not the State Government passed the older dated 28 -12 -1962 without applying its mind to the question as to whether or not the premises in dispute were vacant. His order, therefore, does not suffer from any defect. No other submission has been made before us. The special appeal is, therefore, rejected. We, however, direct that a copy of this judgment as also that of Hon'ble S.G. Manchanda, J. dated 19 -8 -1965 shall be sent to the State Government forthwith in order to enable them to take such action as they like to take in the matter.