2012 (10) TMI 991 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether adjoining land is part of this accommodation or not? Whether if the adjoining land on which the construction is alleged is part of the Government accommodation No.1 and 2 then the authorities are justified on their part?

Issues Involved:
1. Cancellation of allotment of Government accommodation to the Trust.
2. Alleged misuse of position by the District Magistrate/Secretary of the Trust.
3. Political pressure influencing the decision to cancel the allotment.
4. Procedural lapses in the High Court's handling of the writ petition.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Cancellation of Allotment of Government Accommodation to the Trust:
The appeal concerns the cancellation of allotment of Government Accommodation Nos. 1 and 2, Civil Lines, Ballia, which was initially allotted to the Martyrs Memorial Trust (the Trust) by the District Collector, Ballia. The Trust was established to perpetuate the memory of martyrs and freedom fighters and to carry out various constructive activities. The accommodation was allotted to the Trust on March 27, 2002, for establishing an IT Training Institute for poor and underprivileged students. However, on May 15, 2009, the District Collector issued an order cancelling the allotment, citing a request from the Secretary of the Trust (who was also the District Collector) that the premises were not being used by the Trust.

2. Alleged Misuse of Position by the District Magistrate/Secretary of the Trust:
The appellants alleged that the District Magistrate, who also served as the Secretary of the Trust, misused his position by unilaterally deciding to surrender the Government accommodation without convening a meeting of the Trust or considering any proposal by the Trust. The Secretary of the Trust, in his capacity as District Collector, issued the cancellation order based on self-created grounds, which was challenged by the Trust in the High Court.

3. Political Pressure Influencing the Decision to Cancel the Allotment:
The Trust alleged that the cancellation of the allotment was influenced by political pressure from the ruling Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), which did not have an office in Ballia. It was claimed that the BSP pressured the District Magistrate to cancel the allotment to establish their office in the premises. This serious allegation required a response from the District Magistrate, who had written the letter requesting the surrender of the accommodation and then issued the cancellation order.

4. Procedural Lapses in the High Court's Handling of the Writ Petition:
The High Court disposed of the writ petition filed by the Trust without calling for a counter-affidavit from the respondents. The High Court's order stated that the petitioner had no vested right to continue holding the accommodation as it was only a licensee. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's judgment lacked due application of mind, clarity of reasoning, and focused consideration of the serious issues raised by the appellants. The Supreme Court emphasized that hasty adjudication must be avoided and that each matter must be examined with the seriousness it deserves.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found that the impugned order of the High Court could not be sustained and set it aside. The writ petition filed by the Trust was restored to the file of the High Court of judicature at Allahabad for fresh consideration and disposal after receiving the response from the respondents. The appeal was allowed to the extent of setting aside the High Court's order, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.

← Previous Next →