Judgment:
Bhupesh Sahu versus State of M.P.& Another Writ Petition No.22132 ”
25. 2.2013: Shri V.K.Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the State.
Challenging a show-cause notice issued to petitioner under the Madhya Pradesh Lok Parisar (Bedakhli Adhiniyam).1974, petitioner has filed this writ petition.
Seeking eviction of petitioner from the property in question proceedings have been initiated.
Inter alia contending that under similar circumstances in various cases interim stay has been granted and, therefore, in the present case also similar benefit be granted, this writ petition is filed.
However, Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned counsel for the State raised a preliminary objection and argued that, for the present, only a show-cause notice for eviction under the Madhya Pradesh Lok Parisar (Bedakhli Adhiniyam).1974 has been issued.
After the show-cause notice as reply is to be filed by the petitioner and the competent authority has to pass an order of eviction in accordance with the requirement of Adhiniyam and against the order passed by the competent authority petitioner has remedy of filing appeal before the District and Session Judge, therefore, at this stage when only a show-cause notice has been issued Shri Samdarshi Tiwari submits that interference into the matter is not called for.
So far as pendency of certain writ petitions and grant of interim relief is concerned, Shri Samdarshi Tiwari points out that in those cases preliminary objection raised by the State Government have not been taken note of and, therefore, same will not applicable.
2 That apart, it is argued by Shri Samdarshi Tiwari that the orders are only interlocutory in nature and have no binding force.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record it is clear that, for the present, only a show-cause notice for eviction under the Adhiniyam of 1974 has been issued.
Petitioner is required to give his reply to the show-cause notice and, thereafter the competent authority pass an order and against the order, if still aggrieved, petitioner has remedy of filing an appeal before the District and Sessions Judge and, therefore, interference into the matter directly at this stage in the writ petition is not called for.
That apart, in the Adhiniyam of 1974 itself remedy is available to the petitioner when only a show-cause notice has been issued.
Accordingly, I am not inclined to reject the objection raised by Shri Samdarshi Tiwari merely because the objection raised by Shri Samdarshi Tiwari has not been considered in earlier cases.
In view of above, finding no case for interference the petition is dismissed with liberty to take recouRs.of remedy available in the Act.
With the aforesaid the petition is dismissed.
(Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/