RINKI DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT appears to be a very peculiar case. The petitioner who was the land lady had given her house on rent to one Arun Kumar, proprietor of M/s Bachchan Traders, who was doing business of liquor. When he defaulted with the Excise Department, his licence was cancelled. Subsequently the Excise Department decided to lease out the petitioners house to one Sheo Narayan Jaiswal, respondent no. 4. When the petitioner represented before the Collector, East Champaran, Motihari, he fixed Rs. 3,500/ - per month for her house as rent, which the Collector had given on lease to respondent no. 4. This court finding the said order without authority of law directed the respondents to file counter affidavit and issued notice to respondent no. 4.

(2.) THE notice was validly served on respondent no. 4 but inspite of the same he had chosen not to appear. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of remaining respondent. The stand of the State is that the petitioner earlier had also leased out her house and she was renting her house on lease, as such, she was not at all affected when the Collector decided to lease her house on rent and also fixed rent because she would be receiving rent from the new tenant, put in by the Collector.

(3.) NON -compliance of the aforesaid order within the said period shall be deemed as wilful dis -obedience of the order of this Court, likely for initiation of proceeding of contempt against the Collector, Motihari, who shall communicate to the Court the compliance of the order passed today within the period as stipulated by this Court.