ORDER
Umesh Chandra Banerjee, C.J.
1. Upon hearing the submissions made on behalf of the parties, it appears that the learned single Judge has offered more than one opportunity to the official respondents to file a counter-affidavit. But unfortunately, the respondents thought it fit not to file any such affidavit, in the absence of which, in the normal circumstances it is presumed that the allegations in the petition are admitted and as the order passed by the learned single Judge is as regards the completion of road and taking recourse to the acquisition proceedings, no exception can be taken to the same. For convenience sake, the relevant text of the order of the learned single Judge is set out herein below in this context:
“I have considered the respective contentions, and find that the laying of the road on the private property without taking recourse of law is illegal and arbitrary. Accordingly, the action of the third respondent in laying the road is illegal and contrary to law. However, since the road is not completed and it is in the process it is directed that the further laying of the road in the land of the petitioner if not already completed shall be stopped forthwith and necessary action shall be initiated in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition proceedings. If the road has already been laid and the public is permitted to use the road, the authorities shall initiate the land acquisition proceedings and pay the compensation to the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,”
2. Be it placed on record, the learned single Judge has taken a rather serious view as regards the non-filing of the counter-affidavit in the matter. The learned single Judge recorded as follows:
“However, that it is not the end of the matter. The conduct of the third respondent is highly objectionable. This Court seriously takes note of the conduct of the third respondent. Inspite of sending the notices and also the sending intimations by the learned Government Pleader, he did not file any counter and also did not appear before this Court explaining the delay in not filing the counter. This Court would have initiated the contempt proceedings against the third respondent for violating the directions of this Court. But, however, it feels that it would be appropriate that necessary disciplinary proceedings shall be initiated against the third respondent for not responding to the directions of this Court. Accordingly, the Chief Engineer, R&B, Hyderabad, shall initiate disciplinary proceedings against the third respondent for dereliction of the duties in accordance with the provisions of the CCCA Regulations for not submitting the counter before this Court.”
3. The learned Government Pleader for Transport (R&B) appearing for the appellant-third respondent takes very strong exception to this portion of the order and contended that initiation of disciplinary proceedings is not within the domain of the learned single Judge and as such, the learned single Judge has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of the jurisdiction in the matter of directing the initiation of an enquiry proceeding. Without going into the substance of the contention, however, we feel it expedient to record that there may be some force in such contention. We, however, deem it fit that it would not be in consonance with justice to direct initiation of such a disciplinary proceeding, but for the reasons as recorded in the judgment. As such, the second part of the order as regards the
initiation of the disciplinary proceedings stands set aside and quashed. The departmental authorities, however, would be at liberty to take appropriate steps against the concerned officer if they deem it fit and proper.
4. The appeal stands disposed of as above. No order as to costs.