High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/1100/2020disposed off

Ramayan Suryavanshi v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2020-06-08Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1100 of 2020 Ramayan Suryavanshi S/o Shri J. R. Suryavanshi, Aged About 37 Years, Occupation Service, R/o House H-11, P.H.E. Colony, Panchseel Nagar, Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Public Health And Engineering, Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. Engineer-In-Chief, Public Health Engineering Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. Superintendent Of Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Circle Raipur, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate For State :

Ms. Sunita Jain, G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 08/06/2020

1. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is to the impugned order Annexure P/1 dated 12.03.2020, whereby the allotment of quarter of the petitioner has been cancelled.

2. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that by virtue of the allotment made on 29.07.2019 and pursuant to which the petitioner has already taken possession of the said quarter i.e. Qtr. No. H-11 near Old Panchsheel Nagar, Raipur on 01.02.2020 in exchange of an earlier quarter i.e. Qtr. No. H-15, near Old Panchsheel Nagar, Raipur. The contention of the petitioner further is that without any intimation to the petitioner, abruptly behind his back the allotment of quarter has been cancelled by the respondent No.2.

3. According to the petitioner, the allotment made to the petitioner was by the committee authorized for allotment of quarter and in case if the cancellation also was to be done, it ought to had gone before the same committee, therefore the impugned order to that extent is bad in law.

4. Having heard the contentions put forth by the counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.2 to place the dispute of the petitioner in respect of the cancellation of his quarter before the Quarter Allotment Committee in the Department. The Quarter Allotment Committee in turn thereafter should scrutinize the claim of the petitioner and verify whether there were any earlier applications for the said quarter pending in the Department, which was not considered at the time when the claim of the petitioner was made and whether while granting allotment of quarter to the petitioner the claim of one Shri Sunil Chaturvedi, Personal Private Secretary has been deprived or not?

5. Let the respondent No.2 take a decision for placing the matter before the Quarter Allotment Committee within a period of two weeks and the Quarter Allotment Committee also shall consider the claim of the petitioner and compare the same with the claim of said Sunil Chaturvedi in accordance with the Rules governing the field within a further period of 30 days. Till the Quarter Allotment Committee takes a decision, let status quo as it exists today be maintained in respect to the Qtr. No. H-11, near Old Panchsheel Nagar, Raipur.

6. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved