Shri Kabool Singh vs N.D.M.C. And Ors.
2004 Latest Caselaw 238 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Rule.

With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.

2. Petitioner, by this writ petition, seeks quashing of office order bearing No.SAA(Q)/Estate/373/P dated 21.8.2001, Annexur-P herein and order bearing No.SAA-IV(Q)/Estate/P/44 dated 28.2.2002, Annexure P-4.

By the impugned order dated Annexure-P, the Assistant Director (Quarters) (Estate) of the respondent-NDMC cancelled the allotment of the petitioner in respect of Quarter No.S-5, Abul Fazal Road, Bengali Market, New Delhi. Petitioner was debarred from allotment of quarter for a period of one year and required to vacate the quarter within 15 days from the receipt of cancellation order. The damages @ Rs.2996/- per month w.e.f. 4.1.1999 to 31.10.1999 and @ Rs.3457/- per month w.e.f. 1.11.1999 till the date of vacation were intimated. It was further mentioned in the notice that in case petitioner fails to hand over vacant possession of the quarter within the stipulated time of 15 days, necessary eviction proceedings under Sections 5 and 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 would be initiated.

3. By the impugned order dated 28.2.2002, (Annexure P-4), the cancellation order dated 21.8.2001, was revoked w.e.f. 17.4.2001 and license fee, to be charged, was informed as under:-

From 4.1.99 to 31.10.99 damages charges/Market Rent @ Rs.2996/- per month.

From 1.11.99 to 16.4.2001 damages charges/Market Rent @ Rs.3457/- per month.

From 17.4.2001 to 29.11.2001 (i.e. the date of vacation) license fee @ Rs.199-/- per month.

4. It is seen from the documents on record that on receipt of the impugned cancellation order (Annexure P) dated 21.8.2001, petitioner made number of representations dated 31.8.2001, 11.9.2001 as also sent legal notice dated 19.3.2002. By the said representations and legal notice, petitioner had called upon the respondent to revoke the cancellation order and restore the allotment. It is the admitted position that despite having made these representations and serving of the legal notice, petitioner handed over possession of the quarter in question on 29.11.2001. It appears that it is for this reason that the cancellation order was revoked by the respondent vide impunged order dated 28.2.2002 and the license fee at the lower rate was also charged for the period 17.4.2001 to 29.11.2001.

5. The main plank of the petitioner's submission is that the respondent prior to passing of the cancellation order (Annexure-P) did not issue any show cause notice. It is submitted that the respondent acted on the basis of certain complaints made by people, who were inimical to the family friend of the petitioner and who was staying with him i.e. one Mr.Tejpal Singh, who has been treated by the respondent as sub-lettee.

The case of the respondent on the other hand is that petitioner himself was working in the estate department and would get prior knowledge of any survey or inspection planned and hence the inspections and surveys carried out turned futile. Nevertheless, complaints were received that the petitioner has sub-let the premises to Mr.Tejpal Singh, a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT). It is urged by Ms.Hima Kohli that irrefutable evidence was produced before the Authorities, in terms of the School record of the TGT, where the residence has been shown as the petitioner's premises. Not only this, the receipts of gas connection were also shown in favor of the sub-lettee, which were anterior to the connections granted in favor of the petitioner himself. Be that as it may, as admitted position is that order had been passed without granting any opportunity of show cause to the petitioner against the cancellation order. Not only this, the charges had also not been determined by the Assistant Director of Estate.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent very fairly concedes that in the instant case, these lacunae remain.

7. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned orders dated 21.8.2001 Annexure-P and 28.2.2002 Annexure P-4 are hereby quashed with liberty to the respondent to issue a fresh show cause notice on the same cause of action, affording full opportunity to the petitioner to show cause against the cancellation as also the proposed levy of charges by the respondent.

8. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that deduction from his HRA as well as other amounts, as claimed by the respondent, has already been made and petitioner has been put out of pocket, of considerable amount of money. Respondent shall issue the show cause notice within 15 days from today and after considering and affording an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause, take a decision by passing a speaking order within three months from today.

The writ petition is allowed in the above terms.