Bhanu and 38 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Court No. - 47 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41524 of 2023 Petitioner :- Bhanu And 38 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishal Khandelwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Avinash Chandra Srivastava Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶2The instant petition has been preferred for challenging the order dated 11.07.2023 passed by respondent no.2 over the application for seeking interim protection dated 18.04.2023.

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioners sought attention of the Court towards the order impugned and submitted that the application for interim relief was rejected by respondent no.2 without any reasoned and speaking order wherein it has only been mentioned that there is no justification for granting interim protection.

¶4Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.4 vehemently objected the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners and stated that the instant petition is not maintainable since the order dated 11.07.2023 is interim in nature and revision is also pending which is apparent from the order impugned and the same was posted for 12.09.2023 and as such, there is hardly any cause of action arises in favour of the petitioner to pursue the instant petition during pendency of the revision.

¶5After having the rival submissions as extended by learned counsel for both the parties, the Court finds that the objection so raised by learned counsel for the respondent no.4, is not maintainable since the order dated 11.07.2023 is a final adjudication made over the application preferred by the petitioners seeking interim relief during pendency of the revision and as such, the same can be assailed by way of filing writ petition.

¶6Argument raised by learned counsel for petitioners that there is hardly any reasoning given by the respondent no.2 while dismissing the application for seeking interim relief, seems to be forceful.

¶7In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, order dated

11.07.2023 so far as it relates to the rejection of the stay application dated 18.4.2023 is concerned, is hereby quashed and set aside, the matter is remitted back to the respondent no.2 for deciding the interim prayer as made through the application dated 18.04.2023 afresh by way of affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties and decide the same by reasoned and speaking order.

¶8The abovementioned exercise shall be completed within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before respondent no.2.

¶9The instant petition is allowed accordingly.

¶10Till the disposal of the application for interim protection preferred by the petitioners by the respondent no.2, all the parties are directed to maintain status quo over the land in question. Order Date :- 8.12.2023 Nitika Sri. (Manish Kumar Nigam, J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad