WPC/2258/2012 of Amritlal Pradhan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors on 27 December 2012

1. ^State of Chhattisgarh, Through[-]TheSecretary,Homebepartment,Mantralaya, New Raipur, bistt. Raipur-(C.G.)TheSecretary,Homebepartment,Mantralaya, New Raipur, bistt. Raipur-(C.G.)2.beputy Inspector General of Police <&^"SeniorSuperintendentofPolice,Raipur/CollectorateParisarRaipur(C.G.)^"SeniorSuperintendentofPolice,Raipur/CollectorateParisarRaipur(C.G.)

Respondents

3. < <

CompetentAuthority,LokParisarBedakhaliAdhiniyam1974<&SubbivisionalOfficer(Revenue)RaipurPolice Station Gole Bazar Raipur P.0.Raipur, District[-]Raipur-(C.G.)BedakhaliAdhiniyam1974<&SubbivisionalOfficer(Revenue)RaipurPolice Station Gole Bazar Raipur P.0.Raipur, District[-]Raipur-(C.G.)

.</^7.

WRIT PETITCON UNbER ARTCaE 22^0F THECQNSTITUTCON

OFINbIA[f^]

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR

SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JW.P(Cl. 2258 of 2012

PETITIONER

Amrit Lal Pradhan

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

State of Chhattisgarh & others

Present:

Mr. Shrawan Agrawal, Counsel for the PetitioneriB.Mr. Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate, forthe State on advance copy.

ORAL ORDER(27.12.2012)

1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.10.2012 (Annexure P-1)wherebythecompetentauthorityundertheLokParisarBedakaliAdhiniyam, 1974 (for short "Adhiniyam 1974") has directed the petitioner'seviction from residential quarter in his possession.It appears that thepetitioner is posted at a different place in Distt. Gariyaband which accordingto him is a Naxal affected area and he has retained the quarter allotted tohim at Raipur compelling the concerned authority to move applicationbefore the competent authority underthe Adhiniyam, 1974.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that by virtue ofCircular dated 16.11.2004 (Annexure P-3) petitioner is entitled to retain thequarter allotted to him at his previous place of posting and for this theimpugned order deserves to be quashed.

3. Having perused the contents of the writ petition, more particularly,the document (Annexure P-3), it appears[to][ this][ Court][ that][ there][ is][ nothing]in the order (Annexure P-3) which mandates the Government to provideaccommodation to police personnel posted in the Naxal affected areas atthe place of his choice or at the previous place of posting.If no^accommodation is provided to him, he is entitled to house rent allowance asper the language of the document (Annexure P-3).

.^9

/^t%

Rao

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would admit that the petitionerwas posted at Raipur for 10 to 15 years and since then he is in occupationofthe accommodation.

5. For the foregoing, this Court is not convinced with the argument thatthe petitioner is entitled to remain in occupation of the concerned residentialquarter allotted to him at Raipur. No case for interference is made out. Thewrit petition is accordingly dismissed.

6. However,if thepetitioner submitsanundertakingbeforetheallotment officer within 15 days from today to the effect that he shall vacatethe premises immediately after the end of the academic session i.e., by 30thof April, 2013, the order of eviction shall not be acted upon during thisperiod. However, if he fails to submit undertaking within the aforesaid periodof 15 days, the authority would be entitled to execute the eviction order afterexpiryof15days.

7. Accordingly, I.A.No.3 for hearing the case during winter vacation andI.A.No.2 for urgent hearing stand disposed of.I.A.No.2 for urgent hearing stand disposed of.

C.c. today.

Sd/-

Prashant Kumar MishraJudge

r