Sadhan Kumar Acharya vs Reserve Bank Of India And Anr.
2003 Latest Caselaw 794 Del

JUDGMENT

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.

1. The petitioner was employed with the Reserve Bank of India in Grade II. He was charge-sheeted and dismissed from the service of the Reserve Bank of India on 22.11.2002. The appeal filed against the dismissal order was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 28.3.2003. Thereafter, a Section 4 notice under the Public Premises(Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1971 was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why an eviction order should not be passed against him. The said notice was issued on 10.6.2003 and was affixed on the outer door of the premises in which the petitioner resided on 12.6.2003. Apart from affixation, notice was also sent under registered post and UPC. Despite service of notice, the petitioner did not appear on 20.6.2003, the date fixed for hearing before the Estate Officer. Accordingly, by an order dated 21.6.2003, the Estate Officer ordered eviction of the petitioner.

2. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred an appeal under Section 9 of the said Act which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge by a judgment and order dated 28.7.2003. The petitioner had specifically raised the question of whether the notice under Section 4(1) of the said Act had been served upon the petitioner in accordance with law or not. Another question that was considered by the learned Additional District Judge was whether the petitioner had been given a fair and proper opportunity by the Estate Officer in the proceedings before him under the said Act. Both these questions as also the question of whether the petitioner, after having been dismissed from service, was entitled to retain the official accommodation were considered by the Learned Additional District Judge in some detail. After examining the entire records, the learned Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that (a) the petitioner was not entitled to retain the accommodation in question; (b) that the notice was duly served upon the petitioner under Section 4(1) of the said Act and (c) that the petitioner had been granted full opportunity of replying to the case against him. In view of these findings, the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal.

3. Having examined the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge as well as the submissions and contentions raised on behalf of the learned counsel appearing on both sides, I find that there is no ground made out for interference with the impugned judgment and order dated 28.7.2003 of the learned Additional District Judge. This is particularly so because this court does not sit as a court of appeal and under writ jurisdiction it has only to ascertain whether principles of natural justice have been followed, whether a fair and proper opportunity has been granted and whether the authority below has not exceeded its jurisdiction. I find that there is no error in these respects. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has requested for some time to vacate the premises. I am inclined to accede to this request of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, upon the petitioner filing an undertaking within a week from today, the petitioner is permitted to retain possession of the premises in question for one month from today.

4. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.