Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has issued a notice to Keshav Prasad Maurya, Deputy Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh), asking him to file a reply in response to the allegations levelled against him in a dispute regarding alleged efforts to grab a house.
In the writ petition filed by one Vishnu Murti Tripathi of Prayagraj, serious allegations of malafide have been made against Maurya, who has been made a respondent (opposite party) number six.
While posting the matter for January 10, 2022 for the next hearing, a division bench comprising Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Om Prakash Tripathi have also directed the state government to file its reply in response to the averments made in the writ petition.
According to the case file, there is a dispute regarding possession of a house in Kalindipuram Awas Yojna at Prayagraj between the petitioner and a private respondent.
In the writ petition, Vishnu Murti Tripathi of Prayagraj has alleged that with Maurya’s support the private respondent was trying to grab the house of the petitioner.
Earlier on October 6, 2021, the court after hearing both sides had observed, “The grievance urged in the instant petition is that the petitioner, who owns House No. GI 456 EWS, Basera Kalindipuram Awas Yojna, Prayagraj, was dispossessed there from on June 6, 2018 by the intervention of the state machinery. In support of the said contention, reliance has been placed on a communication sent by respondent Keshav Prasad Maurya, the deputy chief minister of UP, to senior superintendent of police (SSP), Prayagraj dated March 14, 2018 wherein it is mentioned that private respondent had requested for possession of the house being delivered on basis of certain enquiry report and the senior superintendent of police was directed to take necessary steps and inform him accordingly.”
The court added, “It has further been alleged that with oblique motives, the petitioner was thereafter implicated in a false case by lodging a first information report (FIR) against him. The petitioner is alleged to have made complaints in this respect to various authorities but no heed was paid to the same and hence, the instant petition has been filed.”
However, appearing on behalf of the private respondent, the counsel had stated that a civil suit is already pending in connection with the aforesaid matter. He further stated that a counter affidavit has already been filed by the private respondent.
