Kailash Patel Vs. Surendra Prasad Modi and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

- indian penal code, 1890.sections 307 & 324: [lokeshwar singh panta & b.sudershan reddy,jj] assault proof - appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - no evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - however opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury held, appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under section 324 of i.p.c., sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him - (supra), it is clearly laid down that the order passed by the authorised officer is not appealable......31 is provided against the order passed by rent controlling authority but the order passed under section 39 onwards are order passed by the authorized officer not by the rent controlling authority, thus the order passed by authorized officer are not appealable.4. learned counsel appearing for respondents has supported the order passed by the appellate court.5. after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion the order has been passed by the authorised officer under section 39 of m.p. accommodation control act with respect to allotment. in the aforesaid decision gouri shankar tiwari v. girijanand gupta and anr. (supra), it is clearly laid down that the order passed by the authorised officer is not appealable. under section 31 the appeal is provided against the order passed by rent controlling authority.6. since in the instant matter the order was not passed by the rent controlling authority, it was passed in the capacity of authorized officer, it could not be said to be appealable, thus the appeal was not maintainable, consequently the order passed in appeal is quashed. writ petition is allowed. no costs.

Judgment:

ORDER

1. Heard.

2. Appellate order dated 14-12-2005 passed in C.A. No. 70-A/05 has been assailed by way of filing this petition. The said appeal was preferred as against decision of the Authorised Officer rendered under Section 39 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act with respect to house in question which was allotted to Kailash Patel and possession was also ordered to be handed over. Aggrieved thereby the appeal was preferred, which has been allowed, case has been remanded to the Rent Controlling Authority, Jabalpur, aggrieved thereby the instant writ petition has been preferred.

3. Shri Ramesh Shrivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the order on the short ground that order was passed by the Authorised Officer allotting the accommodation to Kailash Patel, it was an order passed by Authorized Officer under Section 39(2) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, it was not an order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority. There is a difference between Rent Controlling Authority and Authorized Officer. Thus the appeal is not maintainable against the order. He has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Gouri Shankar Tiwari v. Girijanand Gupta and Anr. 1983 MPRCJ 9, in which it was laid down that order passed by the Authorized Officer under Section 42 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act is not appealable, appeal under Section 31 is provided against the order passed by Rent Controlling Authority but the order passed under Section 39 onwards are order passed by the Authorized Officer not by the Rent Controlling Authority, thus the order passed by Authorized Officer are not appealable.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for respondents has supported the order passed by the Appellate Court.

5. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, in our opinion the order has been passed by the Authorised Officer under Section 39 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act with respect to allotment. In the aforesaid decision Gouri Shankar Tiwari v. Girijanand Gupta and Anr. (supra), it is clearly laid down that the order passed by the Authorised Officer is not appealable. Under Section 31 the appeal is provided against the order passed by Rent Controlling Authority.

6. Since in the instant matter the order was not passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, it was passed in the capacity of Authorized Officer, it could not be said to be appealable, thus the appeal was not maintainable, consequently the order passed in appeal is quashed. Writ petition is allowed. No costs.