Full Judgment
Ram Narayan Tripathi versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.7647 ”
29. 1.2013: Shri J.K.Verma and Shri Manish Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3.
Shri Kumresh Pathak, learned counsel for respondent No.4.
Petitioner claims to be the owner of certain land described in para 5.2 of the writ petition.
Grievance of the petitioner is that notice Annexure P-4 dated 9.5.2006 has been issued by the M.P.Road Development Corporation asking him to remove certain encroachment made on government land.
It is the case of petitioner that a road is being constructed by the M.P.Road Development Corporation and for construction of the road a notice is issued indicating that the encroachment should be removed by the petitioner.
Interalia contending that petitioner has not committed any illegality or encroachment as alleged, he is only utilizing/staying in an area which has been purchased by him and denying the allegation of encroachment, this writ petition was filed challenging the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner.
While hearing the petition on the very fiRs.date i.e.on the question of admission and interim relief, this Court on 25.5.2006 took note of the averments made and directed respondent No.4 the Municipal Council Teekamgarh to conduct an enquiry into the matter and after assessing the width of the road in accordance to 2 master-plan analyze the documents of the petitioner and give a report with regard to encroachment, if any, on the road in question.
not from the return filed by the respondents particularly respondent Nos.1 & 2 it is seen that in pursuance to the order passed by this Court on 25.5.2006 an enquiry was conducted by the Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council Teekamgarh and he has submitted report which is filed by respondents as Annexure R-1.
Petitioner has also filed an application for amendment and in this application the enquiry report is filed as Annexure P-13.
In the enquiry report it is indicated that the petitioner was called, he was granted permission to filed documents, his say was considered and thereafter a finding is recorded that there is certain encroachment in the public road and, therefore, the encroachment is to be removed.
The finding recorded by the Chief Municipal Officer on 26.6.2006 is not proposed to be challenged by the petitioner by amending the writ petition and it is the case of petitioner that the findings recorded is not correct Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that not in the light of findings that has come on record vide Annexure P-13 dated 26.6.2006 no further indulgence into the matter is called for mainly for two reasons, the fiRs.reason is that this is only a stage of show-cause notice issued to the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner is required to give his 3 say in the matter, thereafter it is for the competent authority to pass the final order.
That apart, based on directions issued by this an enquiry has been conducted not this Court cannot go into the disputed questions of fact, as is being made out by the petitioner.
If petitioner has any grievance with regard to encroachment recorded in the report, petitioner should file a suit and seek injunction in the suit or challenge it in his reply to the show-cause notice where disputed questions with regard to encroachment made are properly dealt with.
In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution all these questions of fact cannot be gone into.
Keeping in view the report submitted by the Chief Municipal Officer, no further indulgence into the matter is called for, the petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to reply to show-cause notice and challenge the findings and if still aggrieved to challenge it in accordance to law before a competent court.
By amending the petition, petitioner has raised various grounds which are to be considered by the competent authority of the respondents while deciding the show-cause notice, therefore, at this stage, this Court is not required to enter into the area of enquiry and investigate questions of fact when only a show-cause notice is issued and the final decision is yet to be taken.
It may also be clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the findings recorded in the order Annexure P-13 date”
26. 6.2006 and the petitioner is granted liberty to challenge the same in reply to the show-cause notice, the authorities deciding the show-cause notice, shall consider the objection of the petitioner in this regard and after evaluating the objection of the petitioner shall pass a speaking order so that the petitioner can challenge the final order, if required, in accordance to law before the appropriate court or forum.
Accordingly, this petition is disposed of.
(Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-