0

The UP Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 to provide for the eviction of unauthorised occupants from public premises and for certain incidental matter:- High Court of Allahabad

Petitioner seek a direction to the respondent to recall of witness power to be invoked to meet the ends of justice for strong and valid reasons with cautions and circumspection, and the same issue was held in the judgement passed by a single bench judge Hon’ble Dr Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J. In the matter, Radha Kishan Yadav V/s State of U.P. and Others [WRIT – C No. – 9518 of 2001] dealt with an issue mentioned above.

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 21.12.2000 and 30.6.1995 passed in proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 19721. Section 10 provides for the finality of orders and in terms thereof, every order made by a prescribed authority or appellate officer under the UP PP Act save as otherwise expressly provided for shall be final and shall not be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceeding and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power provided under the Act.

The question as to whether the judicial authority constituted by the State Government under Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, to hear appeals against orders of confiscation that may be passed by the licensing authority under Section 6-A, is not an inferior criminal court subordinate to the High Court and amenable to revisional jurisdiction under Section 435 read with Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, came up for consideration in the decision in Thakur Das Vs. The State of M.P While examining the question the court was required to consider whether the judicial authority appointed under Section 6-C of the said Act would be a persona designata, despite the fact that the said authority happens to be the Sessions, Judge.

The court perused the facts and arguments presented, Having regard to the aforestated legal principles, it can be held that the Appellate Officer, exercising powers under Section 9 of the UP PP Act, does not act as a persona designata but in his capacity as a pre-existing judicial authority in the district — being the District Judge of the district, or such other designated judicial officer. The judge, being part of the district judiciary, acts as a court and the order passed by him would be a judicial order passed by a civil court of plenary jurisdiction and therefore the same would not be amenable to a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The remedy against such orders may be availed under Article 227 on the matters delineated for the exercise of such jurisdiction.

Click here to read the judgment 

Judgment reviewed by Sakshi Mishra

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat