Steel Authority Of India Ltd. vs Life Insurance Corporation Of ...
1997 Latest Caselaw 284 Del

JUDGMENT

C.M. Nayar, J.

1. The present petition is directed against the respondents for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the impugned Orders dated December 18, 1996 and March 4, 1997 passed by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and by the Additional District Judge, Delhi as an Appellate Authority.

2. The Estate Officer is seized of the matter in respect of the premises bearing flat No. 12, 4th Floor, Jeevan Deep Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi which is the subject matter of eviction proceedings between Life Insurance Corporation of India and the petitioner. The necessary proceedings are still continuing before the said Officer who disposed of the preliminary objection taken on behalf of the petitioner that no litigation can come to a Court or a Tribunal without the matter having been first examined by the Committee for this purpose and its clearance for litigation. The Estate Officer has held that this plea cannot be entertained as under the provisions of the Act and rules framed thereunder the job of the Estate Officer is of an 'Enquiry Officer' and it cannot be equated as a Court or Tribunal. The object of the Act is to provide for the eviction of unauthorised occupants from public premises and for such incidental matters. The Appellate Authority also rejected the contention of the petitioner and held the appeal as not maintainable as no appeal is provided against an interim order passed by the Estate Officer in terms of Section 9 of the Act.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the matter is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court dated 7th January, 1994 passed in LA. Nos. 3 & 4 of 1992 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2058-59/1988 (Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. Collector of Central Excise) which held that the inter se disputes between public sector undertakings should first be referred to a High Power Committee as set up by the Court to ensure that no litigation comes to Court or to a Tribunal without the matter having been examined by the Committee and its clearance for litigation. The Court defined the functioning of the Committee for resolving the disputes between Union of India on the one hand and Public Sector Undertaking on the other. The Counsel has, therefore, stated that the High Power Committee is seized of the matter and the Estate Officer should not proceed in respect of the evict ion proceedings till the final decision is taken by that Committee. There is no merit in this contention.

4. The dispute inter se between the parties relates to public premises and an appropriate remedy is provided under the Act and the Estate Officer is proceeding in pursuance to the same. There cannot be any restriction on the rights of the respondents to take recourse of the provisions of law which have been clearly defined by the Statute. The judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. Oil and Natural Gas Commission (supra) is of no application to the present case as it was rendered on totally different facts. Moreover, the Appellate Authority which is the Additional District Judge in the present case has clearly held that no appeal can be directed against an interim order passed by the Estate Officer and in case the petitioner has any grievance, it may raise an objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Estate Officer when the matter is finally decided and in case an appeal is filed against that order. There is no merit in this petition. The same is dismissed in limine.