# Vinay Kumar v. Collector/ D.M., Balrampur. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 707
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-22
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 1002939 of 2001
- **Bench:** Irshad Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vinay-kumar-v-collector-d-m-balrampur-ors-53201
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950 -
Article 226 - Writ Petition - challenging the
cancellation of allotment of land in year 2001 -
order of allotment was passed in year 1986 - for
construction of a residential house, by village
LMC and further duly approved by SDM -
thereafter, possession was delivered to the
petitioner - petitioner spending Rs. 2,50,000/-
over the construction of house - cancellation of
allotment proceeding initiated - allotment was
cancelled - writ petition - plea taken that the
impugned order was passed without issuing any
show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing -
writ petition - at admission stage, court stayed
the impugned order with direction to the
authorities to initiate appropriate proceedings in
accordance
with
law
by
affording
due
opportunity to the petitioner - court finds that,
in
pursuance
to
the
interim
order,
the
respondents did not initiate any such proceeding
of passing fresh order - therefore, impugned
order suffers from apparent illegality and is
liable to be set aside - held, impugned order
suffers from apparent illegality and is violative
of principle of natural justice - Accordingly, the
writ petition allowed - impugned order set-aside
by giving liberty to the respondents to pass
fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing
to the petitioner in accordance with law. (Para
no. 7, 9, 10, 11)

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-11)

List of referred Cases: - No case referred

## Text

4 All. Vinay Kumar Vs. Collector/ D.M., Balrampur & Ors.
707
affidavit, has also averred that the
purpose behind incorporating such stringent
clause as a pre-qualifying condition of the
tender is the distressing environmental
condition in the NCR region. This indicates
that the raison d'être of imposition of a
stringent condition, that is, allowing only the
existing pellet manufacturers having their
plant location in NCR region or within 100
km from the truck gate of the power station to
participate in the tender proces is to reduce
stubble burning by farmers which is the
persistent and root cause for air pollution in
the NCR region.

(Emphasis Added)

27. Ergo, the restrictive condition in
the tender cannot be considered to be arbitrary
and discriminatory. It is within the wisdom
and discretion of the employer to determine
the conditions/clauses that are best suited for
the work to be performed in the public interest.

28. In the present case, respondent
no.3 floated a tender dated July 10, 2024 for
supply of biomass pellets at Harduaganj
Thermal Power Station. Clause 3(i) of the
tender imposes restrictions on participants to
keep a tight rein on persistent obnoxious air
condition in the NCR region. This clause is
also at consensus with the revised Model
Contract dated January 6, 2023 issued by the
Ministry of Power, Government of India. It is
the prerogative of the respondents to frame the
terms and conditions of the tender in
accordance with policy decisions. We,
therefore, do not find any substance in the
arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner.

29. The power of judicial review will
not be permitted to be invoked to protect
private interest at the cost of public interest. It
is a well settled principle that judicial review
in contractual matters is limited, particularly
when the decision of the tendering authority is
bona fide and taken in the public interest.

30. This Court, being the guardian of
fundamental rights is duty-bound to interfere
only in cases when there is arbitrariness,
irrationality, mala fide and biasness and not
otherwise.

31. The essence of the law laid down
in a catena of judgments referred to above
emphasizes the need for judicial restraint and
caution, and that only overwhelming public
interest can justify judicial intervention in
contractual matters involving the State
instrumentalities. The court must acknowledge
that the authority floating the tender is the best
judge of its requirements and, therefore, the
court's interference should be minimal.

32. The Court found no evidence of
mala fide intent or partisanship aimed at
excluding manufacturers outside the NCR
region. Rather, the conditions were structured
to advance the public interest by ensuring the
effective and secure implementation of the
Government's policy, which is crucial for
public safety and welfare.

33. The writ petition is, accordingly,
dismissed.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 707
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ C No. 1002939 of 2001

Vinay Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
Collector/ D.M., Balrampur. & Ors.
 ...Respondents
708 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Umesh Kumar Srivastava, Sri Mohd.
Aslam Khan, Sri Shishir Chandra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri R.N. Gupta

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950 -
Article 226 - Writ Petition - challenging the
cancellation of allotment of land in year 2001 -
order of allotment was passed in year 1986 - for
construction of a residential house, by village
LMC and further duly approved by SDM -
thereafter, possession was delivered to the
petitioner - petitioner spending Rs. 2,50,000/-
over the construction of house - cancellation of
allotment proceeding initiated - allotment was
cancelled - writ petition - plea taken that the
impugned order was passed without issuing any
show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing -
writ petition - at admission stage, court stayed
the impugned order with direction to the
authorities to initiate appropriate proceedings in
accordance
with
law
by
affording
due
opportunity to the petitioner - court finds that,
in
pursuance
to
the
interim
order,
the
respondents did not initiate any such proceeding
of passing fresh order - therefore, impugned
order suffers from apparent illegality and is
liable to be set aside - held, impugned order
suffers from apparent illegality and is violative
of principle of natural justice - Accordingly, the
writ petition allowed - impugned order set-aside
by giving liberty to the respondents to pass
fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing
to the petitioner in accordance with law. (Para
no. 7, 9, 10, 11)

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-11)

List of referred Cases: - No case referred

(Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.)

1. Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Rajiv Srivastava, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State-respondent.
2. Vide order of allotment dated
18.6.1986, an area of 0.03 decimal of other
abadi site comprised in plot No.828-Ga M.,
situated in village Pandri, Pargana, Tehsil
and District Balrampur was allotted to the
petitioner
by
the
Land
Management
Committee of the aforesaid village after
following the prescribed procedure for
construction of a residential house, which
was duly approved by the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Balrampur. The petitioner was
delivered possession, over which he raised
the construction of his residential house by
spending Rs.2,50,000/-.

3. By means of the impugned order
dated 15.6.2001, the allotment of land
made in favour of the petitioner was
cancelled without impleading him as a
party in the case and without giving him
any show-cause notice or opportunity of
hearing.

4. Assailing the order impugned
dated 15.6.2001, passed by the respondent
No.1 contained as Annexure-1 to the writ
petition, submission of petitioner's counsel
is that the impugned order has been passed
without notice and opportunity of hearing
to the petitioner. Specific recital in this
regard has been made in paragraph-2 of the
writ petition.

5. In the counter affidavit filed by
the respondent No.1 there is no denial in
regard to the recital made in paragraph-2 of
the writ petition by the petitioner.

6. While entertaining the writ
petition, this Court passed an order on
29.10.2001, operative portion is being
quoted below :-

 "In view of the fact that the
petitioner was not afforded any opportunity
4 All. Hari Shankar Kushwaha Vs. A.D.J. E.C. Act Lko & Anr.
709
prior to the passing of the
impugned
order
of
cancellation
of
allotment, the operation of the impugned
order dated 15.6.2001 shall remain stayed
till further orders of the court. However, it
will be open to the concerned authority to
initiate appropriate proceedings and pass
orders after affording due opportunity to
the petitioner in accordance with law. In
the meantime, the residential house of the
petitioner shall not be demolished."

7. While granting the interim order,
it was noticed that no opportunity of
hearing was afforded to the petitioner,
while passing the impugned order of
cancellation of allotment and the operation
of the order was stayed till further orders
and it was left open to the concerned
authority to initiate appropriate proceeding
and pass order after affording opportunity
of hearing to the petitioner in accordance
with law. It was also ordered that in the
meantime, the residential house of the
petitioner shall not be demolished.

8. In pursuance to the order of this
Court, the respondents did not initiate
proceeding of passing fresh order, after
affording opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner.

9. In view of the admission of nongrant of opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner, the impugned order suffers from
apparent illegality and is liable to be set
aside. The interim order granted on
29.10.2001 also gave liberty to the
respondents to pass a fresh order, after
affording an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner, but the same has not been done.

10. In view of the admitted position
in the matter that no notice nor opportunity
of hearing was granted to the petitioner, the
impugned order suffers from apparent
illegality and is violative of principles of
natural justice.

11. Accordingly, the impugned
order dated 15.6.2001 (Annexure-1 to the
writ petition) is hereby set aside by giving
liberty to the respondents to pass fresh
order, after giving opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner in accordance with law.

12. With the aforesaid observation
and direction, the writ petition succeeds
and is allowed.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 709
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Mattr Under Article 227 No. 1281 of 2024

Hari Shankar Kushwaha ...Petitioner
Versus
A.D.J. E.C. Act. Lko. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Adnan Ahmad

Counsel for the Respondents:
Anurag Shukla

Civil Law-Constitution of India, 1950Article 227 - The Code of Civil Procedure,
1908-Order 21 - Rule 97, 98 & 101-
Application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC is
available only to a stranger, who claims to be in
possession of the properties in his rights which
are independent and is a third person claiming
right, title or interest in the property to seek
restoration
of
the
decretal
property
in
contradiction to the powers under Order 21 Rule
35 which prescribes for removal of any person
who is bound by the decree--- In the present
case that the respondent tenant, having failed
to establish any of his defenses taken in reply to