Facts
The petitioner challenged a notice dated 25 July 2026 and sought implementation, in relation to the allottees of plots A-1 to A-16, of an order dated 24 August 2023 in W.P. No. 22036/2015.
Source reference: p. 1He also sought protection from coercive steps pending a decision following communication dated 30 January 2026.
Source reference: p. 1Relying on Mohd. Mumtaz Anwar v. The Principal Secretary and Others, W.P. No. 33553/2026, decided on 28 September 2026, the petitioner sought similar relief.
Source reference: p. 2Respondent No. 3 accepted that the present matter was identical and could be disposed of on the same basis.
Source reference: p. 2Issues
1. Whether the directions issued in Mohd. Mumtaz Anwar should apply mutatis mutandis to the petitioner’s case.
Source reference: p. 22. Whether the petitioner should receive time to reply to the show-cause notice and protection from coercive action while the authorities consider and decide the matter.
Source reference: pp. 2–3Law Applied
The Court applied the approach adopted in Ajay Mohgaonkar and Others v. Municipal Corporation, Bhopal and Others, W.P. No. 14159/2021, and followed in Mohd. Mumtaz Anwar: a petitioner may submit a detailed reply with relevant documents, after which the authority must provide an opportunity of hearing and decide the matter in accordance with law, taking note of the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3767.
Source reference: pp. 1–3The cited orders also provide for no coercive action pending the authority’s final decision.
Source reference: pp. 1–3Reasoning
The Court treated the petitioner as identically situated to the petitioner in Mohd. Mumtaz Anwar, a position accepted by respondent No. 3.
Source reference: pp. 2–3It therefore applied that decision’s directions mutatis mutandis, rather than independently examining the merits of the challenged notice.
Source reference: pp. 2–3The petitioner was allowed to submit a detailed reply and supporting documents, and the authorities were directed to hear him and decide the matter consistently with the cited Supreme Court decision.
Source reference: pp. 2–3Holding
The Court disposed of the petition, granting the petitioner seven working days to file a detailed reply with relevant documents, if not already filed.
The respondent/Corporation was granted four weeks to make a final decision after hearing the petitioner and considering Rajendra Kumar Barjatya.
Source reference: p. 3No coercive action in pursuance of the impugned order may be taken until that final decision.
Source reference: p. 3No order as to costs.
Source reference: p. 3Original Court PDF
Kundan Lal SitlanivsThe Principal Secretary
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
