# Ramesh Chandra Rai v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 10 ILRA 109
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-10-13
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 9330 of 2016
- **Bench:** Pankaj Bhatia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramesh-chandra-rai-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47671
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. United Provinces Excise Act, 1910 -
Section 34(3) - UP Excise (Settlement of
License for Model Shop of Foreign Liquor)
Rules, 2003 - Rule 17 - Cancellation of
licence - Show cause notice issued -
Liquor not seized from the licenced
premises
- Seizure memo
does not
mention that the petitioners were in
'conscious possession' of the said liquor
crates - Effect - Held, cancellation of the
license and the consequent seizure was
clearly de hors the Rules. (Para 17 and
18)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-

## Text

10 All. Ramesh Chandra Rai Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
109
compensation on the same principles.
These issues have already been examined
by the Division Bench in Runwell India
Pvt. Ltd. and the Division Bench of this
Court in Ashok Kumar (supra), where the
ratio was clear and unmistakable. It is to
this effect: any claim for additional
compensation based on the directions in the
Full Bench directions in Gajraj which
have been issued in the special facts of the
case and confined to the landholders who
were before the Court in Gajraj cannot be
entertained. The benefit cannot be extended
to the fence-sitters, who now raise claims
for additional compensation. This is the
clear purport of the directions of the
Supreme Court in Savitri Devi modifying
the relative directions in Gajraj.

15. It is for this reason that the
petitioner's
claim
for
additional
compensation, for his lands acquired long
ago, canvassed by petitioning the Greater
Noida Industrial Development Authority,
was turned down by means of the order
dated October 30, 2019 that he has
impugned in this petition.

16. For all the reasons indicated
hereinabove, we do not find any infirmity
in the order impugned passed by the Chief
Executive Officer, Greater Noida Industrial
Development Authority.

17. The writ petition fails and is
hereby, dismissed. There shall be no order
as to costs.
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 109
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.10.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.
Writ-C No. 9330 of 2016
connected with
Writ C No. 9388 of 2016

Ramesh Chandra Rai ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Amit Dwivedi, Umesh Chandra Tripathi,
Vinod Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Manoj Kumar Dwivedi

A. United Provinces Excise Act, 1910 -
Section 34(3) - UP Excise (Settlement of
License for Model Shop of Foreign Liquor)
Rules, 2003 - Rule 17 - Cancellation of
licence - Show cause notice issued -
Liquor not seized from the licenced
premises
- Seizure memo
does not
mention that the petitioners were in
'conscious possession' of the said liquor
crates - Effect - Held, cancellation of the
license and the consequent seizure was
clearly de hors the Rules. (Para 17 and
18)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-
1. Patel Jethabhai Chatur Vs St. of Guj.; (1976)
4 SCC 522
2. St. of Pun. Vs Balbir Singh; (1994) 3 SCC 299
3. Sanjay Dutt Vs St. Through C.B.I., Bombay
(II); (1994) 5 SCC 410
4. Writ C No. 5098 of 2017; Ajay Pratap Singh
Vs St. of U.P. & ors. decided on 6.7.2022
(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.)

1. Both the petitions involve the
interpretation of provisions of law which is
similar, as such, they are being decided by
means of the common judgment.

2. Facts of Writ - C No.9330 of 2016:
110 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

i. The petitioner was granted a
license for retail sale of foreign liquor at
Mohammadabad, District Gazipur for the
excise year 2009 - 10 under the Uttar
Pradesh Excise (Settlement of License for
Model Shop of Foreign Liquor) Rules,
2003 (hereinafter referred to as ''the 2003
Rules') and the said license was renewed up
to the year 2015-16. It is alleged that an
FIR was lodged against the petitioner,
which was registered as Case Crime No.67
of 2015 at P.S. Mardaha, District Gazipur
under Section 60 of the U.P. Excise Act
read with Section 392, 411 & 120B IPC. In
pursuance to the said FIR, the joint
residential premises of the petitioner as
well as his brother Krishna Gopal Rai was
searched and a seizure memo was prepared
on 17.4.2015 (Annexure - 6 to the petition).
In the said seizure memo, it was averred
that in the house, which is jointly owned by
the petitioner as well as his brother, at the
instance of the informer, a raid was carried
out and in the boundary wall inside the
house at the North West corner 14 crates of
liquor were recovered and a sample was
drawn from each of the said crates.

ii. Based upon the said recovery,
the petitioner was issued with a show-cause
notice dated 23.4.2015 calling upon the
petitioner to show-cause as to why, in
exercise of powers under Section 34(3) of
the
United
Provinces
Excise
Act
(hereinafter referred to as ''the Act') read
with Rule 17(3) of the 2003 Rules, steps
may not be taken for cancellation of the
license and entire amounts such as renewal
fee, license fee and security etc. may not be
confiscated.

iii. The petitioner submitted a
reply to the said show-cause notice, which
did not find favour with the Collector,
Gazipur who proceeded to pass an order on
1.6.2015 cancelling the license and directed
for confiscation of the entire fees etc., as
well as the goods which were kept in the
licensed premises of the petitioner.

iv. The petitioner preferred an
appeal against the order dated 1.6.2015,
which too was dismissed on 27.7.2015 and
the revision preferred was also dismissed
on 17.3.2016. The said orders are under
challenge.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
fairly states that the shop cannot be
restituted to the petitioner and confines his
submissions to the illegal confiscation of
the renewal fees, license fees and the
security deposit as well as the confiscation
of goods which were lying at the licensed
premises of the petitioner and have been
subsequently auctioned.

4. Facts leading to filing of Writ - C
No.9388 of 2016 is as follows:

i. The petitioner was granted
license for retail sale of country liquor
shops at Dubiha and Bathor, District
Gazipur for the Excise Year 2009-10 and
2011-12 in terms of the provisions of Uttar
Pradesh Excise (Settlement of Licenses for
Retail Shop of Country Liquor) Rules,
2002 (hereinafter referred to as ''the 2002
Rules'). The said two licenses granted to
the petitioner were renewed up to 2015-16
and subsequently on the basis of an FIR
lodged against the petitioner, a search was
carried out at the premises which was being
used as a residence by the petitioner
alongwith his brother Ramesh Chandra Rai.
In the said seizure memo prepared on
17.4.2015 (Annexure - 6), 14 crates of
liquor were recovered from the North West
portion of the house. In view of the said
recovery, a show-cause notice was issued
to the petitioner on 23.4.2015 (Annexure -
7) calling upon the petitioner to show-cause
as to why steps may not be taken in
10 All. Ramesh Chandra Rai Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
111
purported exercise of powers under Section
34(3) of the Act read with Rule 21(3) of the
Rules for cancellation of the license and for
confiscation
of
the
entire
amounts
deposited by the petitioner.

ii. The petitioner gave a reply to
the said show-cause notice on 5.5.2015,
however, the same did not find favour with
the District Magistrate who proceeded to
cancel the license of the petitioner vide
order dated 1.6.2015 (Annexure - 3) and
also directed that the entire amounts
deposited by the petitioner, including the
basic license fee, the renewal fee and the
security deposit be forfeited and steps be
taken for auction of the goods lying in the
license premises of the petitioner.

iii. Aggrieved against the said
order, the petitioner preferred an appeal
which was dismissed on 27.7.2015. The
petitioner preferred a revision which too
has been dismissed on 3.2.2016. The said
orders are under challenge in the present
petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
fairly states that the license cannot be
restituted to the petitioner and confines the
present writ petition to the refund of the
amounts illegally confiscated as well as for
refund of the amounts lying with the
government on account of auction of goods
lying in the licensed premises of the
petitioner in pursuance to the order dated
1.6.2015.

6. Submission of learned counsel for
the petitioners is that neither Section 34(3) of
the Act nor Rule 17(1)(C) and Rule 17(3) of
the 2003 Rules (in respect of Ramesh
Chandra Rai - petitioner of Writ - C No.9330
of 2016) entitle the respondents to confiscate
the amounts as has been done nor does it
authorize them to sell the goods which were
lying in the licensed premises.

7. Similarly, in Writ - C No.9388 of
2016 it is argued that neither under Section
34 of the Act nor under the 2002 Rules, the
respondents were authorized to confiscate the
amounts and the goods lying in the
petitioner's premises and thus, the orders to
that extent are bad in law.

8. To appreciate the controversy as
raised it is essential to refer to Section 34 of
the United Provinces Excise Act, 1910,
which reads as under:

"34. Power to cancel or suspend
licences, etc. - (1) Subject to such
restrictions, as the State Government may
prescribe, the authority granting any licence,
permit or pass under this Act may cancel or
suspend it-

(a) if any duty or fee payable by the
holder thereof be not duly paid; or

(b) in the event of any breach by
the holder of such licence, permit or pass or
by his servants, or by any one acting on his
behalf with his express or implied permission
of any of the terms or conditions of such
licence, permit or pass; or

(c) if the holder thereof is convicted
of any offence punishable under this Act or
any other law for the time being in force
relating to revenue, or of any cognizable and
non-bailable offence, or of any offence
punishable under the Dangerous Drugs Act,
1930 or under the Merchandise Marks Act,
1889, or of any offence punishable under
Sections 482 to 489 (both inclusive) of the
Indian Penal Code; or

(d) where a licence, permit or
pass has been granted on the application of
the grantee of an exclusive privilege under
this Act, on the requisition in writing of
such grantee; or

(e) if the conditions of the licence
or permit provide for such cancellations or
suspension at will.
112 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(2) When a licence, permit and
pass held by any person is cancelled under
clauses (a), (b) or (c) of sub-section (1), the
authority aforesaid may cancel any other
licence, permit or pass granted to such
person by, or by the authority of the State
Government under this Act or under any
other law for the time being in force
relating to excise revenue or under the
Opium Act, 1878.

(3) The holder shall not be
entitled to any compensation for the
cancellation or suspension of his licence,
permit or pass under this section nor to a
refund of any fee paid or deposit made in
respect thereof."

9. Rule 17(1)(C) and Rule 17(3) of
the 2003 Rules are as under:

"17. Suspension or cancellation
of the license.- (1) Licensing Authority may
suspend or cancel the licence-

(a)...

(b)...

(c) If any liquor or intoxicating
drug is found in the possession of the
licensee against the provisions of the Act or
rules.

.....

(2)......

(3) The licensee shall not be
entitled to claim any compensation or
refund for suspension or cancellation of
license under this rule.

....."

10. Rule 21 of the 2002 Rules reads
as under:

"21.
Suspension
and
cancellation of the licence and penalties -
(1) Licensing Authority may suspend or
cancel the license -

(a) if any bottle or container of
country liquor is found in the licensed
premises on which duty has not been paid
and
which does
not
carry
security
hologram duly approved by the Excise
Commissioner as a proof of payment of
duty;

(b) if any bottle or container of
any other kind of liquor or intoxicating
drug (for which licence is not granted) is
found in the licensed premises;

(c) if any liquor or intoxicating
drug is found in the possession of the
licensee against the provisions of the Act or
rules;

(d) if the affidavit submitted by
the licensee at the time of application is
found incorrect and assertions made
therein are found to be false;

(e) if it is found that the licence
has been obtained in a false name or the
licensee is holding the licence on behalf of
some other person.

(f) if the licensee fails to deposit
monthly instalment of licence fee or
replenish the deficit in security amount
within prescribed period;

(g) if the licensee is convicted of
an offence punishable under the Act or of
any cognizable and nonbailable offence, or
any offence punishable under Narcotics
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 or of any offence punishable under
Sections 482 to 489 of the Indian Penal
Code.

(2) The Licensing Authority shall
immediately suspend the licence and issue
a show cause notice for cancellation of
licence and forfeiture of security. The
licensee shall submit his explanation within
7 days of the receipt of notice. There after
the Licensing Authority shall pass suitable
orders after giving due opportunity of
hearing to the licensee.
10 All. Ramesh Chandra Rai Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
113

(3) In case the licence
is
cancelled the basic licence fee, licence fee
deposited by him shall stand forfeited in
favour of the Government and licensee
shall not be entitled to claim any
compensation or refund. Such licensee may
also be blacklisted and debarred from
holding any other exercise licence."

11.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners argues that for exercising the
powers under the Rules, which are quoted
herein above, it is essential that the
licensing authority can pass an order of
suspension or cancellation only if the
''liquor is found in the licensed premises' or
in the ''possession of the licensee', which is
not the case in the present case. He further
argues that the possession of the licensee
referred to under the 2003 Rules as well as
the 2002 Rules has to be ''conscious
possession' which is not recorded even in
the seizure memo. He takes me to the
seizure memo, which is on record, to argue
that the seizure and recovery was not in
accordance with the provisions of Section
42 of the Cr.P.C. and in any case there is no
reference in the seizure memo that the
recovery
was
from
the
''conscious
possession' of the petitioners.

12. To buttress his submissions, he
places reliance on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Patel
Jethabhai Chatur v. State of Gujarat;
(1976) 4 SCC 522 wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court had the occasion of
interpreting Section 66(1) of the Bombay
Prohibition Act, 1949 and the Hon'ble
Supreme Court after interpreting the said
provisions specifically with regard to the
possession recorded as under:

"6. That takes us to the second
limb of the contention directed against the
order of retrial on the further charge of
possession of liquor. It is true that
originally when the case was tried before
the learned Judicial Magistrate, there was
no charge against the appellant and
Accused 3 to 8 for the offence of consuming
liquor and the appeal of the State was also
directed only against their acquittal for the
offence of consuming liquor. But there can
be no doubt that if, while hearing the
appeal, the High Court found that, on the
material before him, the learned Judicial
Magistrate should have framed a further
charge against the appellant and Accused 3
to 8 but he failed to do so, the High Court
could certainly direct the learned Judicial
Magistrate to frame such further charge
and try the appellant and Accused 3 to 8 on
such further charge. The High Court could
legitimately
in
the
exercise
of
its
jurisdiction, set right the error committed
by the learned Judicial Magistrate in not
framing a proper charge. Here, the High
Court, on a consideration of the material
which was before the learned Judicial
Magistrate, came to the conclusion that this
material warranted the framing of a further
charge against the appellant and Accused 3
to 8 for possession of liquor and it,
therefore, directed that the case should go
back to the learned Judicial Magistrate and
he should try the appellant and Accused 3
to 8 on such further charge. The High
Court clearly had jurisdiction to make such
an order. But then, the complaint made on
behalf of the appellant was that the
material before
the learned Judicial
Magistrate did not justify the framing of a
charge against the appellant and Accused 3
to 8 for possession of liquor and hence the
order directing their trial on such further
charge was not justified. This is, however a
complaint on facts and we do not see any
reason why we should, in the exercise of
our
extraordinary
jurisdiction
under
114 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Article 136 of the Constitution, entertain
such a complaint. It is true that there are
certain observations made by the High
Court which are a little too wide but it
cannot be gainsaid that even a person who
participates in a drinking party can in
conceivable cases be guilty of the offence of
possession of liquor. Suppose a person is
found at a drinking party and he has a
glass with him with liquor in it at the time
when the raid is carried out, would it not
be correct to say that he was at the relevant
time in possession of liquor? The liquor in
his glass would be liquor in his possession.
But at the same time it would not be correct
to say that merely because a participant in
a drinking party can stretch his hand and
take liquor for his use and consumption, he
can be held to be in possession of liquor.
The question is not whether a participant in
a drinking party can place himself in
possession of liquor by stretching his hand
and taking it but whether he is actually in
possession of it. Possession again must be
distinguished from custody and it must be
conscious possession. If, for example, a
bottle of liquor is kept by someone in the
car or house of a person without his
knowledge, he cannot be said to be in
possession of the bottle of liquor. It cannot,
therefore, be laid down as an absolute
proposition that whoever is present at a
drinking party must necessarily be guilty of
the offence of possession of liquor and must
be charged for such offence. Whether an
accused is in possession of liquor or not
must
depend
on
the
facts
and
circumstances of each case. Here in the
present case, the prosecution will have to
establish at the trial by leading satisfactory
evidence that the appellant and the other
accused were in possession of liquor or
else the prosecution on the charge of
possession of liquor will fail. The order
directing trial of the appellant and the
other accused for the offence of possession
of liquor must, therefore, be maintained,
but we think it would be desirable if this
trial is taken up after the disposal of the
appeal by the High Court in regard to the
acquittal of the appellant for the offence of
consuming liquor.

13. He further places reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of State of Punjab v. Balbir
Singh; (1994) 3 SCC 299 wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the
manner of search and seizure and recorded
as under:

"8. But if on a prior information
leading to a reasonable belief that an
offence under Chapter IV of the Act has
been committed, then in such a case, the
Magistrate or the officer empowered have
to proceed and act under the provisions of
Sections 41 and 42. Under Section 42, the
empowered officer even without a warrant
issued as provided under Section 41 will
have the power to enter, search, seize and
arrest between sunrise and sunset if he has
reason to believe from personal knowledge
or information given by any other person
and taken down in writing that an offence
under Chapter IV has been committed or
any document or other article which may
furnish the evidence of the commission of
such offence is kept or concealed in any
building or in any place. Under the proviso
if such officer has reason to believe that
search warrant or authorisation cannot be
obtained without affording opportunity for
the concealment of the evidence or facility
for the escape of the offender, he can carry
out the arrest or search between sunset and
sunrise also after recording the grounds of
his belief. Sub-section (2) of Section 42
further lays down that when such officer
takes down any information in writing or
10 All. Ramesh Chandra Rai Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
115
records grounds for this belief under the
proviso, he shall forthwith send a copy
thereof to his immediate official superior."

14. He further places reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Sanjay Dutt v. State Through
C.B.I., Bombay (II); (1994) 5 SCC 410
wherein
the
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
interpreted the word ''possession' and
recorded as under:

"19. The meaning of the first
ingredient of ''possession' of any such arms
etc. is not disputed. Even though the word
''possession' is not preceded by any adjective
like ''knowingly', yet it is common ground that
in the context the word ''possession' must
mean possession with the requisite mental
element, that is, conscious possession and not
mere custody without the awareness of the
nature of such possession. There is a mental
element in the concept of possession.
Accordingly, the ingredient of ''possession' in
Section 5 of the TADA Act means conscious
possession. This is how the ingredient of
possession in similar context of a statutory
offence importing strict liability on account of
mere
possession
of
an
unauthorised
substance has been understood."

15. He also places reliance on the
judgment of this Court in Writ - C No.
5098 of 2017 (Ajay Pratap Singh v. State
of U.P. & Ors.) decided on 6.7.2022
wherein this Court in similar circumstances
had the occasion to interpret the scope of
Section 21 of the 2002 Rules as well as
Rule 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Excise
[Settlement of Licenses for Retail Sale of
Foreign Liquor (Excluding Beer and Wine
Rules)] Rules, 2001 which are pari materia
with Rule 17(1)(C) and Rule 21(3) of the
2003 Rules and held as under;

"15. The action as taken against
the petitioner under the orders impugned
herein was clearly an 'expropriatory
action' and the provision in the Rules are
also 'expropriatory'. It is well settled that
expropriatory powers conferred on State
through statutes are required to be
interpreted strictly and the orders passed
have to pass the 'strict scrutiny test'. On a
plain reading of the provisions of the Rules
18 and 21 in the 2001 and 2002 Rules
respectively, it is clear that the steps for
suspension and cancellation of the licence
can be taken only in the event that (i) any
liquor is found in the licensed premises or
(ii) it is found in the possession of the
licensee. The other conditions specified in
Rule 21 and Rule 18 need not detain this
Court as the same do not arise in the
present
case.
The
words
"licensed
premises" has not been defined under the
Act and the Rules referred above, however
while granting of licence, the premises for
which the licence has been granted is
clearly delineated and specified in the
licence itself and thus for the purposes of
interpreting the word "licensed premises",
reference has to be drawn to the premises
referred to in the licence. Any infraction or
possession of liquor or intoxicating drugs
other than authorized in the 'licensed
premises' would certainly empower the
authority concerned to take action under
Rules 18 or Rule 21 of the aforesaid Rules
as the case may be. Similarly the
possession of any liquor or intoxicating
drugs other than the authorized in the
possession of the licensee would also
trigger the powers to be exercised under
Rules 18 and 21 of the aforesaid Rules. In
the absence of any allegation of any
recovery from any place in the 'licensed
premises' or in the 'possession of the
licensee', the powers to suspend and cancel
116 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
cannot be resorted to under the Act or the
Rules referred above."

16. The Court further allowing the
writ petition passed the following order in
Para - 22:

"22. As no direction for renewal
of the licences can be issued in view of the
change
in
the
policy
of
the
State
Government, the writ petition is disposed
off with a direction to refund the
proportionate
basic
license
fee,
the
proportionate license fee and the security
deposit as forfeited by means of the order
dated 24.02.2016 within a period of two
months from the date of the petitioner
moving an appropriate application before
the District Magistrate, District Amethi."

17. In the present case, admittedly the
recovery was not from the licensed
premises and the liquor was recovered from
the residential premises jointly owned by
both the petitioners. In the seizure memo
on record, there is no mention that the
petitioners were in ''conscious possession'
of the said liquor crates, the seizure memo
on record does not even record the presence
of the petitioners; it nowhere records that
the petitioners were conscious of the said
liquor. There are no independent witness to
the seizure which started on 16.4.2015 but
was signed on 17.4.2015.

18. I have already held that the liquor
was not seized from the licensed premises
which is admitted case of the parties.
Further, there being no material to come to
an opinion that the liquor allegedly seized
from the residential premises of the
petitioners
was
in
their
conscious
possession, in terms of the Rules, the
cancellation
of
the
license
and
the
consequent seizure was clearly de hors the
Rules.

19. Now coming to the second
question as to whether the District
Magistrate could have directed the sale of
liquor seized from the licensed premises
and legally under the custody of the
petitioners by virtue of they being license
holder, an interesting feature in the petition
is that in the show-cause notice, the
petitioners were never called upon to showcause as to why the liquor legally under the
custody of the petitioners and lying in the
licensed premises may not be sold. The
show-cause notice on record as Annexure -
7 only proposes to confiscate the amounts
deposited by the petitioners and does not
even proposes the punishment of sale of
liquor which was in the legal custody of the
petitioners. In view thereof, the District
Magistrate could not have passed an order
directing for sale of liquor which was
legally under the custody of the petitioners
in the licensed premises. Even otherwise,
the sale could not have been directed as
was done by the District Magistrate as there
is no power under the rules for sale of the
liquor kept legally in the licensed premises.
Thus, on both grounds the order passed by
the District Magistrate and as affirmed in
appeal and revision are clearly not
sustainable.

20. Accordingly, both the writ
petitions are allowed.

21.

Orders
dated
17.03.2016,
27.07.2015 & 01.06.2015 (Annexures - 1, 2
and 3 respectively in Writ - C No.9330 of
2016) as well as Orders dated 03.02.2016,
27.07.2015 & 01.06.2015 (Annexures - 1, 2
& 3 respectively in Writ - C No.9388 of
2016) are set aside.
10 All. Ghansu & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
117

22. Respondents are directed to
refund the proportionate basic license fee,
proportionate license fee and the security
deposit as forfeited vide order dated
1.6.2015 to the petitioners.

Respondents are further directed
to refund the amount obtained by them
through auction of the liquor which was
directed to be sold from the licensed
premise of the petitioner in Writ - C
No.9330 of 2016 and that of the petitioner
in Writ - C No.9338 of 2016.

23. The amounts as directed above,
shall be paid to the petitioners within a
period of four months from the date of
them moving an appropriate application
before respondent no.5.
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 117
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

Writ-C No. 13935 of 2018

Ghansu & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Hari Om Khare, Sri Akash Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ajay Prakash Paul (State Law Officer),
Sri Nitin Kumar Agarwal (Addl. C.S.C.)

A. Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Writ - Maintainability - Laches - Ground
of
making
representation,
how
far
acceptable - Allegation was made that the
petitioner's land was submerged due to
construction
of
a
water reservoir
-
Representation, claiming compensation
for loss was made - No enquiry was made
to
know
about
the
status
of
their
representation
-
Effect
-
Held,
the
petitioners should have been vigilant
enough and enquire about the status of
their representation so made before the
authorities
concerned
-
High
Court
refused to grant relief relying upon the
stand of the St. that height of the dam has
not been increased and whatever was
there a century before, has been retained.
(Para 2, 7 and 10)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-
1. Writ C No. 10967 of 2022; Smt. Pushpa Devi
Vs St. of U.P. decided on 05.05.2022
2. Writ C No. 4796 of 2022; Ram Avtar Sharma
Vs St. of U.P. & ors. decided on 07.03.2022
3. P. S. Sadasivasway Vs St. of T. N.; (1975) 1
SCC 152
4. New Delhi Municipal Council Vs Pan Singh &
ors.; (2007) 9 SCC 278
5. St. of Uttaranchal & anr. Vs Sri Shiv Charan
Singh Bhandari & ors.; 2013 (6) SLR 629
6. Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply &
Sewerage Board & ors. Vs T. T. Murali Babu;
2014 (4) SCC 108
7. St. of M. P. & ors. etc. etc. Vs Nandlal Jaiswal
& ors. etc.; AIR 1987 SC 251
8. St. of Jammu & Kashmir Vs R. K. Zalpuri &
ors.; 2015 (15) SCC 602
9. U.O.I. & ors. Vs Chaman Rana; 2018 (5) SCC
798
10. Senior Divisional Manager, L.I.C. Vs Shree
Lal Meena; (2019) 4 SCC 479
11. Sheel Kumar Jain Vs New India Assurance
Co. Ltd.; (2011)12 SCC 197
12. Civil Appeal No.1009 of 2020; Bharat Coking
Coal Ltd. & ors. Vs Shyam Kishore Singh
decided on 05.02.2020
13. U.O.I. & ors. Vs N. Murugesan & ors.;
(2022) 2 SCC 25