Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15358 of 2018 Petitioner :- Mohd. Parvez Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Saran Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Heard Sri Vivek Saran for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1, 2 and 3; and perused the record.
The present petition has been filed assailing the notice dated 16.02.2018 (Annexure No.6) (which has been wrongly typed in the writ petition as notice dated 19.03.2018) by which the petitioner has been called upon to answer as to why petitioner's occupation be not removed from over Nazul plot no.4362 (detailed in the notice) in exercise of powers under the Public Premises Act, 1972 (in short P.P. Act).
The grievance of the petitioner is that earlier, on 29.06.2017, the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Meerut had called upon the petitioner to produce documents in respect of his occupation of plot no.4632 and without any adjudication on that notice, proceeding has been initiated under the provisions of the P.P. Act.
It is the prayer of the petitioner that the issue should first be adjudicated by the Additional District Magistrate, who has served notice dated 29.06.2017 upon the petitioner, and thereafter, if required, proceeding under Section 4 of the P.P. Act should be initiated.
The aforesaid contention as well as prayer of the petitioner is worthy of rejection, inasmuch as, mere calling to produce a document in an informal proceeding is only for the purpose of drawing preliminary satisfaction as regards the nature of occupation but that does not prevent the Prescribed Authority to draw formal proceeding for eviction against an alleged unauthorized occupant. Accordingly, the notice calling upon the petitioner to submit response can neither be said to be without jurisdiction nor it could be termed arbitrary so as to warrant exercise of constitutional powers by this Court. The petitioner can very well respond to the notice and produce documents to show that he is not an unauthorized occupant, if it be so.
With the aforesaid liberty, the petition is disposed of.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner.
Order Date :- 27.4.2018 AKShukla/-