IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11790 of 2010 Manoj Kumar Ghosh Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 07. 13.07.2011 Heard Mr. Suraj Narayan Yadav for the petitioner and Mr. Krishna Chandra Jha, assisting counsel to S.C. 4. The petitioner challenges the action of the respondent authorities of the Shree Krishna Goshala Society, Jainagar, Madhubani of which the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jainagar, Madhubani, the respondent no. 9 is the ex-officio President in cancelling the allotment of the petitioner from the shop allotted by the Society followed by a subsequent order whereunder the petitioner was forcefully vacated from the shop in question. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The petitioner was allotted a shop by the Shree Krishana Goshala Society, respondent nos. 8 to 10 subject to payment of an amount of Rs. 35,000/-. It is again not in dispute that the said amount has been deposited by the petitioner and evidence whereof can be found in the writ petition. After a lapse of 11 years a proceeding was said to be drawn against the petitioner, inter alia, on grounds of subletting the shop and which according to the respondent Society was not in accordance with the terms and conditions of the allotment. In this back ground respondent nos. 8 and 9 herein who happens to be the ex-officio 2 President of the Society, by a notice dated 18.01.2010 addressed to three of the allottees directed them to show cause as to why their allotment be not cancelled for reasons of subletting and thus violating the terms and conditions of allotment. The petitioner contends that the notice was never served upon him. The said notice was followed by an order contained in Memo No. 180 dated 26.2.2010, whereunder the petitioner was charged with subletting of the shop in an illegal manner and keeping it in a closed possession. In the aforesaid background, a direction was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer deputing a Magistrate for getting the shop in question vacated from the possession of the petitioner and for taking it in their own possession by putting their own lock over the same. It so appears that the said direction was not carried out by reason of certain festival falling in between and thus the direction was renewed in a subsequent order dated 8.3.2010 and pursuant whereto the lock of the petitioner over the shop in question was broken, inventory prepared and thereafter the possession of the shop was restored to the officials of the Society. The orders aforesaid can be found in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. Learned counsel for the State submits that following the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer, the shop after getting it vacated from the possession of the petitioner has been settled with one Pradeep Thakur, who is the sublettee of the 3 petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court towards an order dated 20.04.2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5123 of 2010 which was heard along with C.W.J.C. No. 6513 of 2010. He contends that of the three allottees on whom notice had been issued vide Memo dated 18.1.2010, two of them, namely, Pradip Kumar and Nawal Kishore Prasad had come before this Court through the aforesaid writ petitions and a Bench of this Court upon consideration of the rival contentions of the parties was pleased to dispose of the writ petition vide order dated 20.4.2010 with a direction to the Sub-Divisional Officer to restore the possession of the shop to the respective petitioners. This Court while examining the rival contentions has held that even while Gaushala Committee was well within its jurisdiction to cancel the allotment in view of the violation of the terms and conditions thereof, but nevertheless it had no jurisdiction to get it forcefully vacated from the possession of the petitioner by use of police force in absence of appropriate orders from the Civil Court of a competent jurisdiction. The case of the petitioner is no different as he along with the said two writ petitioners, namely, Pradip Kumar and Nawal Kishore Prasad had been ousted in the same and similar manner. Considering the circumstances as noted 4 hereinabove and the Bench decision of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5123 of 2010 and C.W.J.C. No. 6513 of 2010, this writ petition is also disposed of with a direction to the Sub-Divisional Officer to restore the possession of the shop to the petitioner within a period of a fortnight with effect from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Needless to add that since the very ouster of the petitioner from the shop in question has been held illegal, any subsequent allotment would be governed by the doctrine of ‘lis pendens’. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)