Chattisgarh High Court
Chiranjiv Kumar Jain Partner Of ... vs The Director In Charge on 24 April, 2025
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 1947 of 2025
1 - Chiranjiv Kumar Jain Partner Of Sachdeva New P.T. College S/o Shri Manik
Chand Jain Aged About 61 Years R/o M.I.G. 33, Vaishali Nagar, P.S. Bhilai P.S.,
Supela Bhilai, Tahsil And District- Durg (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - The Director In Charge Through Chief General Manager (Township) Bhilai
Steel Plant, Bhilai District- Durg C.G.
2 - Dinesh Kumar Singal S/o Late K N Singal R/o Nehru Nagar (East) Bhilai,
Durg (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
Order on Board
24/04/2025 Mr. S. Rajeshwar Rao, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Saurabh Pande, Advocate for the respondent No. 1.
On 17.04.2025, learned counsel appearing on advance
copy for the respondent No. 1 was directed to seek instructions
given the nature of the dispute. Although the counsel has filed a
Vakalatnama, the return on behalf of respondent No. 1 is still
awaited
Digitally
signed
Heard on I.A. No. 01 of 2025, which is an application for
by
SHAYNA
KADRI
grant of interim relief.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner, who runs a coaching institute in the name and style of
"Sachdeva New P.T. College," is aggrieved by the actions of
Bhilai Steel Plant. On 02.04.2025, the authorities entered the
institute, asked the staff members and students to leave the
premises and have sealed the coaching institute while affixing a
notice in the premises. The institute contains students' articles,
study materials, electronic equipment, furniture, and vehicles. The
students in the institute are preparing for forthcoming NEET (The
National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test) which is scheduled to be
held on 04.05.2025. Due to the arbitrary sealing, the students are
severely affected, prompting this petition. The counsel requests
that the seized articles i.e. articles of students, study material,
electronic equipments, furniture, vehicles etc. be returned during
pendency of proceedings initiated against the petitioner and the
interim application may be allowed while directing the respondent
authorities to return the seized articles.
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1
submits that the petitioner is an unauthorized occupant of the
premises belonging to Bhilai Steel Plant and as per law laid down
by the Supreme Court, the relief as sought in the interim
application cannot be granted to him. In support of his contention,
he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata
and Others vs. APL (India) Private Limited and Others,
reported in (2019) 14 SCC 374. According to the notice affixed,
the petitioner is an unauthorized occupant who has illegally
occupied public premises, and proceedings have been initiated
under the The Public Premises (Eviction Of Unauthorised
Occupants) Act, 1971. Therefore, the seized articles cannot be
returned
On due consideration of the entire aspect of the matter, it is
apparent that before sealing of the institute, no notice was issued
to the institute and without any notice, the premises has been
sealed, during the period when the students were attending
classes in the premises, they were directed to vacate, they were
not permitted to retrieve their study materials and equipment,
such as computers and laptops. These students are currently
preparing for the NEET examination scheduled for 04.05.2025, as
such, without entering into the merits of the case and only for the
purpose of welfare of the students who will be affected by the said
sealing, purely in the interest of justice, it is directed that
respondent No. 1 may open the sealed premises in presence of
petitioner, students who are studying there and in presence of
other witnesses and articles may be returned while preparing a
list of articles duly signed by petitioner, students and witnesses
and thereafter, the premises may again be sealed.
It is made clear that if this Court requires the returned
articles to be deposited, the petitioner and students shall
deposit/submit the same. An affidavit in this respect is to be
executed by the petitioner and in case of any order passed, they
shall deposit the articles in question.
Respondent No. 1 is further directed to record the entire
exercise through videography on the date when the sealed
premises is opened and the articles are handed over to the
concerned persons, after which the premises shall be resealed.
This exercise be done on 28th of April, 2025 between
11:00 am to 02:00 pm.
This order is passed solely in the interest of students
preparing for the imminent NEET examination. It shall not be
construed that this interim order is final or will affect the ultimate
decision in the case.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Shayna
