AMAR NATH MEHROTRA Vs. IIIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari quashing an order dated 23.12.1977 of the R.C. and E.O. rejecting a review application for cancelling the allotment of a shop situated in Building No. 12, Meerganj, Allahabad to the respondent No. 3, and order dated 17.12.1981 of the Additional District Judge, Allahabad dismissing the petitioner's revision against the same.

(2.) THE facts relevant are that on a letter sent by respondent No. 4 Rajendra Nath Mehrotra who is the brother of the petitioner Amar Nath Mehrotra, intimating R.C. and E.O. about his desire to let out the shop in question and nominating the respondent No. 3 Smt. Shashi Prabha Agrawal, after giving notice to the respondent No. 4, the R.C. and E.O. made an allotment of the shop in favour of the respondent No. 3 by order dated 25.3.1974. When the allottee tried to take possession with police aid, the petitioner on coming to know of the same, filed an application for review under Section 16(5) of Act 13 of 1977 on 6.5.1974. The application was opposed by the respondent No. 3. The R.C. and E.O. rejected the same on 31.5.1974. The appeal against it was dismissed by the District Judge. The petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 6214 of 1974 which was allowed, and quashing the two orders, the R.C. and E.O. was directed to decide the application under Section 16(5) after enquiry into the question as to whether as claimed the petitioner was a co-owner and the allotment without notice to him was invalid and whether the allotment was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation.

(3.) THIS writ petition was filed and admitted on 20.1.1982. Notice was issued and service was held sufficient on the respondents and the case was directed to be listed for disposal before the Court. Meanwhile the record was lost in the office and on an application to that effect being moved by the petitioner it has been re-constructed. Notice by Registered Post was issued again to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, the same was not returned back, hence service has been held to be sufficient.