Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Laxmi Kanta Patra vs Union Of India & Ors on 4 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
The Hon'ble JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
IA No.:CAN/1/2012 (Old No.:CAN/8439/2012)
In
WPA 7421 of 2012
Laxmi Kanta Patra
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
For the petitioner: Mr. Gobinda Chaudhuri, Adv.,
Mr. Bikash Chowdhury, Adv.
Heard on: 24 July, 2023.
Judgment on: 04 August, 2023.
BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J. : -
1. The petitioner has filed an instant writ petition praying for issuance
of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to cancel,
withdraw and/or rescind and/or quash the order of demand dated 18th
November, 2011 issued by the Estate Manager and also commanding
Foreign Trade Development Officer (FTDO), respondent No.4 herein not to
release the alleged claim by the respondent No.2 from the salary or other
monetary benefit of the petitioner.
2. Brief fact involved in the instant writ petition is as follows: the writ
petitioner is a superannuated Group-D staff attached to the Foreign Trade
Development Office controlled by the Union of India. He was allotted a
Type II quarter being No.B-112 at Tollygunj Central Government Quarter
on 22nd November, 1996. The petitioner took possession of the said
quarter on the date of allotment and stayed there till 6th March, 1998. On
9th February, 1998 the petitioner wrote a letter to the Estate Manager
expressing his willingness to surrender and vacate the said quarter with
effect from 28th February, 1998. On 5th March, 1998 the petitioner wrote a
letter to the Junior Engineer (Electrical) CPWD, Tollygunj Central
Government Quarter Type II, Room No.B Flat No.112 requesting him to
furnish electricity bill upto the month of February, 1998. On or about 19th
March, 1998 electric consumption bill in the month of December 1997,
January, 1998 and February 1998 was issued in favour of the petitioner
and he paid the entire electric bill and thereafter surrendered and vacated
possession of the said flat to the authority. On 16th March, 1998, the
Foreign Trade Development Officer issued a certificate in favour of the
petitioner certifying that the petitioner have already paid house rent till
February 1998 which was deducted from his salary bill. As the petitioner
paid house rent as well as electricity bill, the Estate Manager issued "no
demand certificate" in favour of the petitioner on 27th January, 2020.
Thereafter the petitioner handed over vacant possession of the flat in
question in favour of the respondents.
3. After a lapse of about two years and ten months, the Assistant
Estate Manager wrote a letter dated 9th October, 2002 informing the
petitioner that "no demand certificate" issued in favour of him was
withdrawn on the ground that the petitioner has not vacated the said
government accommodation. It is the grievance of the petitioner that when
the Estate Manager on examination of the entire record, electricity bill etc.
paid by the petitioner in respect of the said flat issued "no demand
certificate", the Assistant Estate Manager who is below the rank of the
Estate Manager cannot quash the "no demand certificate" issued in
favour of the petitioner in the year 1998. It is also stated by the petitioner
that after vacating the said quarter, civil security inspected the room on
the same date and thereafter the said room was locked by the civil
security and the petitioner delivered possession of the said flat putting his
signature on the relevant register maintained by the CPWD. On 10th
October, 2002 the Assistant Estate Manager demanded payment
outstanding amount of Rs. 6,817/- in favour of the petitioner for his
illegal occupation of the premises in question till November 2002 at the
rate of Rs. 134 per month. On 18th January, 2003 the Estate officer
issued a show-cause notice upon the petitioner stating, inter alia, that the
petitioner had been continuing occupying the public premises, i.e. the
said flat till 27th May, 2003 without payment of rent. He was directed to
appear before the competent authority on 9th April, 2003. However on 18th
June, 2003 the Estate Officer issued notice under Section 5(1) of the
Public Premises (Eviction Unauthorized Occupation) at to the petitioner. It
is also submitted by the petitioner that the respondent No.2 knew that the
petitioner surrendered the quarter with effect from 6th March, 1998 on
payment of all statutory dues. On 3rd March, 2003, Foreign Development
Officer by a letter informed the respondent No.2 that he did not vacate the
said flat and he is under obligation to pay outstanding license fee beyond
the said period. However on 10th October, 2003, the Assistant Estate
Manager issued a notice to the Foreign Trade Development Officer
(Administration) to direct the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2,42,931/-
towards the license fee for his unauthorized occupation till 27th August,
2003.
4. The Foreign Trade Officer in his office note clearly stated that the
petitioner applied for surrendering the quarter in question on 9th,
February, 1998 to the Estate Manager, Kolkata with effect from 1st March,
1998. Accordingly the said quarter was surrendered and vacated with
effect from 6th March, 1998. The Estate Manager also issued "no demand
certificate" in favour of the petitioner. Moreover, CPWD (Electrical) vide
their certificate dated 19th March, 1998 also certified that there is nothing
outstanding against the petitioner. Entire fact within the knowledge of the
respondent No.2 but he demanded a huge sum of money towards arrear
license fee with ill motive mala fide intention. The petitioner informed the
entire facts by a letter date 16the March, 2006 to the Director General of
Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce, New Delhi. The Foreign Trade
Officer also supported the contention of the petitioner by a letter dated
16th June, 2008 to the Director General of Foreign Trade at New Delhi.
Finally, the petitioner issued a letter through his learned Advocate
demanding justice on 6th November, 2010. On 18th November, 2011, the
Estate Manager issue the purported demand notice informing the Director
General of Foreign Trade of non-payment of license fee and the
government accommodation of the petitioner taken by forcefully evicting
him on 27th March, 2003. Therefore the petitioner is liable to pay market
rent for his unauthorized occupation with effect from 17th March, 1998 to
27th August, 1998. In the said letter, the Estate Manager also proposed to
initiate recovery proceeding against the petitioner to realize the said sum
of Rs. 2,18,475/-.
5. Against the said order the petitioner moved the Central
Administrative Tribunal for appropriate relief. The learned Tribunal by an
order dated 22nd February, 2012 dismissed the application filed by the
petitioner on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to entertain this
matter.
6. I like to record at the outset that in respect of certificate of notice,
the respondents are not represented. No accommodation was sought for
on behalf of the respondent since the instant writ petition is pending from
2012, this Court is inclined to disposed of the instant writ petition on the
basis of submission made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner.
7. The learned Advocate for the petitioner first draws my attention to a
letter written by the petitioner on 9th February, 1998 to the Estate
Manager stating, inter alia, that he no longer required to occupy
government accommodation for dwelling purpose. As such he expressed
his willingness to surrender the said quarter with effect from 28th
February, 1998. The Foreign Trade Development Officer, respondent No.4
herein issued a certificate to the effect that the petitioner had no
outstanding dues on 27th January, 2000. The Estate Manager issued "no
demand certificate" in favour of the petitioner for his "ex occupation" of
government Flat No.B-112 Type II, Block-B, Tollygunj, Kolkata. In the said
letter it is clearly mentioned by the Estate Manager that the petitioner was
in occupation of the said flat on 22nd November, 1996 to 6th March, 1998.
Subsequently on 9th October, 2002, the Estate Manager withdrew "no
demand certificate" issued in the name of the petitioner, as he allegedly
did not vacate the aforesaid government accommodation. The Assistant
Estate Manager also informed the Foreign Development Trade Officer
(Administration) to withdraw a sum of Rs. 6617/- towards the license fee
for illegal occupation of government accommodation in the said flat. It
appears from the record that the Estate Officer issued a notice directing
the petitioner to show-cause under Section 5(1) and 4(2)(B)(i)(ii) of the
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act 1974 directing
him to show-cause as to why a order of eviction should not be made
against the petitioner for his unauthorized occupation of the said flat
during the period between 17th March, 1998 to 27th May, 2003.
Subsequently on 18th June, 2003 the Estate Manager passed an order of
eviction under Section 5(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 directed the petitioner to vacate the
flat in question. By a letter dated 10th October, 2003, the Assistant Estate
Manager informed the Foreign Trade Development Officer (Administration)
to take step to recover government dues of Rs.2,42,931/- from the
salary/pension of the petitioner.
8. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has also submitted note-
sheet of the Foreign Trade Development Officer wherein he clearly held
that the petitioner surrendered the said quarter with effect from 6th
March, 1998 as evident from the "no demand certificate" issued by the
Estate Manager in the month January 2000 certifying that nothing is
dues against the petitioner more over CPWD (Electrical). Vide certificate
dated 19th March, 1998 it was also certified that there is no outstanding
dues against the petitioner. After vacating the quarter, the civil security
department inspected the said quarter on the same day and after
inspection, the said room was locked by the security civil and duly signed
in their relevant register by the petitioner. It is also observed by
respondent No.4 that the petitioner surrendered the said quarter with
effect from 6th March, 1998. The respondent accordingly held that the
penalty imposed against the petitioner by the Estate Manager is not at all
correct and tenable under the law.
9. Dispute raised in the instant writ petition is to consider as to
whether the petitioner vacated the government quarter which was allotted
to him with effect from 1st March, 1998 or he was under illegal occupation
till 27th August, 2003.
10. In support of the petitioner's claim, he submitted "no demand
certificate" issued by the Estate Manager. He also deposited entire electric
bill till February 1998. The electrical authority of the CPWD issued a
certificate that he had no dues towards consumption of electricity. From
the report of the respondent No.4 it appears that the civil security
department took delivery of possession of the said flat from the petitioner
and locked the door of the said flat. Thus, after March 1998 the said flat
went under the control of the civil security department.
11. The respondents, on the other hand has failed to produce any
document in support of their claim.
12. During the pendency of the instant writ petition the petitioner
retired from his service and a sum of Rs.2,42,931/- was deducted from
his retirement benefit.
13. Considering the documents filed by the petitioner in the instant writ
petition this Court is of the view that the petitioner has been able to prove
that he surrendered his government quarter with effect from 1st March,
1998. Therefore the notice of demand of Rs.2,18,478/- towards the arrear
of license fee cannot claimed against him.
14. In view of the above discussion the notice dated 13th December,
2001 issued by the Foreign Trade Development Officer for recovery of a
sum of Rs.2,18,478/- towards arrear of license fee including damages at
market rate from the pension benefit of the petitioner is quashed.
15. The respondent authority especially the respondent No.4 is directed
to repay the said amount to the petitioner if already taken from his
pensioner benefit within 60 days from the date of communication of this
order.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)
