KRISHNA CHANDRA MAURYA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for a direction to the respondents to hand over the possession of the Flat No. 4 Nagar Nigam Awas Vikas Colony Shivpur, Varanasi to the petitioner.

(2.) A further prayer by way of amendment has been added for quashing the order dated 29.11.2005 whereby the allotment made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled by the Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Varanasi.

(3.) AS such the present writ petition was filed with the prayer to direct the respondents to hand over the possession of the disputed flat to the petitioner on the basis of the order dated 16.7.2005 allotting the disputed flat in favour of the petitioner. It appears that in order to flout the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 55862 of 2005 the allotment of the disputed flat was made in favour of one Shamsher Khan the Tax Superintendent in Nagar Nigam, Varanasi. Therefore, the petitioner filed a Contempt Petition No. 3648 of 2006 before this Court and this Court was pleased to pass the following order: "Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the Affidavit which has been filed by the opposite party Sri Shamsher Khan in response to the order dated 27.9.2006 whereby charges have been framed against him. Sri C.K. Parekh has also produced the correspondence undertaken by the person Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Varanasi, vide letter dated 30.9.2006. This action has been proposed in the background in which the contemner had been allotted the premises in question in spite of the direction of this Court to maintain status-quo. According to the said letter and according to the Affidavits brought on record, the order of allotment in favour of Sri Shamsher Khan has been cancelled and the possession has been resumed from him. The letter dated 30.9.2006 of the Nagar Ayukt states that the orders dated 7/10.7.2006 had been obtained due to inadvertence and due to the order of this Court having escaped the notice of the then Nagar Ayukt, for which the subordinate officials were responsible. Considering the aforesaid facts and considering the unqualified apology tendered by the contemner who has already purged the contempt, the charges are dropped and the contempt petition is consigned to records with a warning to the opposite party not to indulge in future which may amount to interference with the orders of this Court. It shall be open to the authorities to proceed under the letter dated 30.9.2006 in accordance with law. It is also noteworthy to mention that the order cancelling the allotment of the applicant is under scrutiny in Writ Petition No. 64705 of 2005 which is still pending."