Allahabad High Court
Satish Chandra Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 7 Ors. on 14 August, 2015
Bench: Pradeep Kumar Baghel
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?A.F.R.
Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 44397 of 2015
Petitioner :- Satish Chandra Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,B.N. Singh Rathore
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The petitioner is a Sub Inspector in Civil Police. He was allotted a government accommodation being Quarter No.B-11, Police Colony, Atarsuiya Compound, District Allahabad when he was posted at Allahabad.
From the record, it transpires that the petitioner was transferred from Allahabad to Sitapur on 5.11.2013 and the accommodation of the petitioner was allotted to the respondent no.8 on 13.2.2014. The respondent no.8 had filed several representations before the Police Officers for taking possession of the said accommodation but no action was taken, whereupon, he preferred Writ Petition No.9900 of 2015 for a direction upon the respondents to take appropriate action. The said writ petition was disposed of on 16.2.2015 by issuing a direction upon the fourth respondent to consider the cause of the petitioner therein.
It appears that in compliance of the order of this Court dated 19.2.2015, the fourth respondent has passed the impugned order against the petitioner to vacate the premises in question within five days.
Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.
The experience reveals that several writ petitions have been filed in this Court for the similar relief. In the case in hand, for the same accommodation, two writ petitions have been filed, one by the allottee and another by the person, who is occupying the accommodation.
The Supreme Court in the case of S.D. Bandi v. Divisional Traffic Officer, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and others, (2013) 12 SCC 631, has laid down the law that an employee should not overstay after his retirement or transfer. The Court has noticed that the States of Uttar Pradesh and Orissa have amended Section 441 of the Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC"). The Supreme Court has observed that the Government in two States are in a position to file criminal proceedings in the case of unauthorised occupation of government accommodation. Section 441 as amended in Uttar Pradesh as quoted in S.D. Bandi (supra) reads as under:
'441. ... or, having entered into or upon such property, whether before or after the coming into force of the Criminal Laws (U.P. Amendment) Act, 1961, with the intention of taking unauthorised possession or making unauthorised use of such property fails to withdraw from such property or its possession or use, when called upon to do so by that another person by notice in writing, duly served upon him, by the date specified in the notice,
is said to commit "criminal trespass".' (Uttar Pradesh)
After considering the response from all the States, the Supreme Court has made certain suggestions inter alia that: a notice should be sent to the allottee/officer/employee; the principles of natural justice have to be followed while serving the notice; show cause notice should be sent within 7 working days; order of eviction should be passed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 15 days; if the occupant's case is genuine then, in the first instance, an extension of not more than 30 days should be granted.
The Supreme Court further held that the same procedure must be followed for damages also; the arrears/damages should be collected as arrears of land revenue; to make it more stringent, there must be some provision for stoppage or reduction in the monthly pension till the date of vacation of the premises.
The State of Uttar Pradesh has informed the Supreme Court that in the State of Uttar Pradesh, there is already a provision in respect of arrears of rent and damages and the rules enable the State to recover the same as arrears of land revenue. The Supreme Court was also informed by the State of Uttar Pradesh that the stringent provision viz. Section 11 of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 is in force.
In spite of the said judgement, it appears that the employees who are transferred in the State of Uttar Pradesh retain their accommodation on lame excuses and the authorities concerned without application of their mind grant extension of time to retain the accommodation.
In a large number of cases, the petitioners cite the example of discrimination with them that other similarly placed employees have been allowed to retain the accommodation by the official concerned while in his case, his application has been rejected.
Therefore, the authority concerned shall adopt an uniform policy for granting extension to retain the government accommodation beyond prescribed limit. The State functionaries would follow the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of S.D. Bandi (supra) in letter and spirit.
For the reasons mentioned herein above, I do not find any ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 14.8.2015
S.Sharma
