Chhattisgarh High Court
WPC/2256/2012 of Hukumlal Sahu and Ors Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors on 27 December 2012
7- IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.fONO. ^^5^ / 2012 Petitioners 1. ( 2. l^ nNo..-.....——"-^"* p'resentedbyShTi.. a :..^ Dated......^."^-/"^^-— ^" A Hukum Lal Sahu (Head Constable)S/o Late Punau Ram Sahu, Aged about 47 years,
IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
W.P.fONO. ^^5^/ 2012
Petitioners1.((
Hukum Lal Sahu (Head Constable)S/oLate Punau Ram Sahu, Aged about 47years, R/o House N6. H-3/6, HudcoColony,Raipur,P.S.CityKotwaliRaipur,PostOfficeBayranBazarRaipur, bistrict Raipur (C.G.).Charan Singh Shori (Constable) S/oChamru Ram, Aged about 48 years,R/o House No.H-3/4, Hudco Colony,Raipur, P.S. City Kotwali Raipur, PostOffice Bayran Bazdr Raipur, DistrictRaipur (C.G.).
2.
l^
nNo..-.....——"-^"*p'resentedbyShTi..a:..^Dated......^."^-/"^^-—
f^"UmendraSinghbhruv(HeadConstable) S/o Late Firan Smgh, Agedabout 53 years, R/oHouse No. H-2/11, Aamanaka Raipur, P.S. AamanakaRaipur, Post Office Tatibandh Raipur,bistrict Raipur (C.G.).
^"
A
Bihari Singh Thakur (Head Constable)S/oBaisakhur Ram,Agedabout52!R/oHouseNo.H-02/10,years,^-^AamanakaRaipur,P.S.AamanakaRaipur, Post Office Tatibandh Raipur,District Raipur (C.G.)'ManjhiHiradhar(Constable)'S/o?Jhalia Manjhi, aged<"7" about. 37__ years'R/oHouse rNo.H-38/1488,PuraniSadarPolicelineRaipur,P.S.City g Q)
^
^.
Versus
Respondents :1.
^
z.
^3.
Page 1 of 4
KotwaliRaipur,Post OfficeBayranBazar Raipur, bistrict Raipur (C.G.)Kejuram (Head Constable) S/o LateBaliram bhruv, Aged about 40^ years,R/o House No. H-05, R/o Civil LineRaipur,P.S.CivilLineRaipur,PostOffice Bayran Bazar Raipur, bistrictRaipur (C.G.)
Gend SinghDiwan (Head Constable)S/o Late Manbodhi Ram Diwan, Agedabout 57 years, R/o House No. H-18,R/o Civil Lin^Raipur, P.S. Civil LineRaipur,PostOfficeBayranBazarRaipur, bistrict Raipur (C.G.)'
State of Chhattrsgarh, Through -TheSecretary,1-lom'eDepartment,^Mantralaya, New Raipur, bistt. Raipur-(c.e.)beputy Inspector General of Police <&SeniorSuperintendentofPolice,Raipur,CollectorateParisarRaipur(C.G.)
CompetentAuthority,LokPdrisarBedakhaliAddiniyam1974<&SubbivisionalOfficer(Revenue)RaipurPolice Station Gole Bazar Raipur P.0.r'Raipur. District - Raipur-(C.G.)Police Station Gole Bazar Raipur P.0.r'Raipur. District - Raipur-(C.G.)
WRIT PETCTCON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTCTUTION
OFINDIA
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPURSINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J
W.P(Cl. 2256 of 2012
PETITIONER5
Hukum Lal Sahu & 6 others
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
State of Chhattisgarh & 2 others
Present:
Mr. Shrawan Agrawal, Counsel for the Petitioners Mr. Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate, for the State on advance copy.
ORAL ORDER
(27.12.2012)
Page 2 of 4
1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,the petitioners have challenged the orderdated 15.10.2012 (Annexure P-1)wherebythecompetentauthorityundertheLokParisarBedakaliAdhiniyam, 1974 (for short "Adhiniyam 1974") has directed the petitionerseviction from residential quarters in their possession.It appears that thepetitioners are posted at different places which according to them are Naxalaffected areas and they have retained the quarters allotted to them atRaipur compelling the concerned authority to move application before thecompetent authority under the Adhiniyam, 1974.
2. Learned counsel for the petitjoners would submit that by virtue ofCircular dated 16.11.2004 (Annexure P-4) petitioners are entitled to retainthe quarter allotted to them at their previous piace of posting[and][for][ this][ the]impugned order deserves to be quashed.
3. Having perused the contents of the writ petition, more particularly,the document (Annexure P-4), it appears to this Courtthat there is nothingin the order (Annexure P-4) which mandates the Government to provideaccommodation to police personnel posted in the Naxal affected areas atthe place of their choice or at the previous p!ace of posting.If no\ accommodationis provided to them, they are entitled to house rentallowance as per the language of the document (Annexure P-4).
Rao
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would admit that the petitionerswere posted at Raipur for 10 to 15 years and since then they are inoccupation ofthe accommodation.were posted at Raipur for 10 to 15 years and since then they are inoccupation ofthe accommodation.
Conclusion
5. For the foregoing, this Court is not convinced with the argument thatthe petitioners are entitled to remainin occupation of the concernedresidential quarters allotted to them at Raipur.No case for interference ismade out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Page 3 of 4
6. However,if thepetitionerssubmitanundertakingbeforetheallotment officer within 15 days from today to the effect that they shallvacate the premises immediately after the end of the academic session i.e.,by 30th of April, 2013, the order of eviction shall not be acted upon duringthis period. However, if they fail to submit undertaking within the aforesaidperiod of 15 days, the authority would be entitled to execute the evictionorder after expiry of 15 days.
7. Accordingly, I.A.No.3 for hearing the case during winter vacation andI.A.No.2 for urgent hearing stand disposed of.C.c. today.
_____—_——
Sd/-Prashant Kumar MishraJudge
Page 4 of 4
Loading citations and judicial treatment…