U.Lingamma v. Executive Engineer, C&B Division, NSRS Project
Case at a glance
- Bench
- SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
Srisailam, Kurnool District And another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.2686 of 2012 ORDER: The petitioner is working as Cook in ITDA School, Udimella and is stated to be performing duties of watch woman. Subject matter of this writ petition wherein the petitioner is seeking mandamus, is Quarter No.B1/23 situated near Petrol Bunk, Sunnipenta, NSRS Project, Srisailam, Kurnool District. The petitioner is questioning action of the respondents 1 and 2 in threatening her to vacate the said quarter without assigning any reasons. The 1st respondent is the Executive Engineer, C & B Division, NSRS Project, Srisailam. The 2nd respondent is Sub-Inspector of Police, Sunnipenta Police Station. Admittedly there is no allotment of the said quarter to the petitioner by the 1st respondent who is the competent authority to make such allotment. The petitioner applied for allotment of quarter to the 1st respondent on
Operative part
28.09.2011. But, without making any application and without allotment of the quarter, the petitioner claims that she is in occupation of the said quarter since two years. According to the petitioner, quarters belonging to NSRS Project, Srisailam are lying waste unoccupied due to which the said quarters are deteriorating. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent is allotting the quarters to various employees of other departments as well as to private persons for occupation with an intention to keep the said quarters in use and to maintain them well. It is the petitioner’s case that she was orally permitted to stay in the said quarters since the last two years without any allotment letter or order. Nobody prevented the petitioner to apply for quarter and to obtain allotment of the quarter and thereafter to enter into the quarter after allotment. The petitioner is admittedly in unauthorised occupation of the quarter in an illegal manner without even paying any rent to the Government therefor. The petitioner’s illegal occupation of the quarter cannot be expected to be protected by this Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The alleged action of the respondents 1 and 2 for ejection of the petitioner from her illegal occupation of the quarter is well within their legal powers. There are no merits as well as bona fides in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. _________ ___________________ Dt. 3rd February, 2012. PNV SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.