Jaswant Singh vs Uoi & Anr.
2009 Latest Caselaw 1915 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                 W.P.(C) 6567/2003 and CM 17201/2008

                                            Date of decision : 06.05.2009
IN THE MATTER OF :

JASWANT SINGH                                        ..... Petitioner
                               Through: Mr. Kumar Rajesh Singh, Advocate
                               with Ms. Punam Singh, Advocate

                    versus

UOI & ANR.                                           ..... Respondents
                         Through: Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Advocate

CORAM

* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

     1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the
        Judgment? No.

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.

     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?    No.

HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)

1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter

alia for directions to the respondent No. 2 to withdraw the notice dated

26.08.2003 issued by the respondent No. 2, under Section 5(1) of the Public

Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, (hereinafter

referred to as 'the Act'), calling upon the petitioner and all other persons in

occupation of the premises bearing No. 1438, Lodhi Road Complex, New

Delhi, to vacate the same within 15 days.

2. Brief facts of the case are that in the year 1983, the petitioner

joined the Directorate of Horticulture, CPWD as a Section Officer. The

respondent No. 1 allotted him a Type-II quarter, referred to hereinabove, on

a monthly licence fee of Rs.122/-. On 07.06.1997, the petitioner was

relieved from his posting at Delhi and transferred to the Horticulture

Department at Mumbai. When posted in Mumbai, the petitioner did not avail

of any house rent allowance and the family of the petitioner continued to

stay in the staff quarter in Delhi. On 15.07.2000, the petitioner was relieved

from his posting in Mumbai and transferred back to Delhi. Thereafter, the

petitioner was issued a notice to show cause dated 28.01.2003, under

Section 4(1) and Section 4(2)(b), calling upon him to explain as to why he

should not be evicted from the premises, having continued to occupy the

same after the allotment stood cancelled w.e.f. 19.06.1997.

3. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 17.04.2003 to

the respondent requesting the respondent to regularize the cancelled

government accommodation in his favour. In the said representation, the

petitioner also mentioned cases of other similarly situated officers, whose

cases were considered favourably by the respondent. However, the

respondent refused to regularize the staff quarter in favour of the petitioner

and instead, issued the impugned notice dated 26.08.2003, thus compelling

the petitioner to file the present writ petition seeking directions to the

respondent No. 2 to recall the aforesaid notice.

4. Counsel for the petitioner seeks to draw the attention of this

Court to an order dated 01.09.2008 passed in WP(C) 7146/2003 entitled

'Chitranjan Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.' to state that the facts of the

present case are squarely governed by the aforesaid order. A perusal of the

aforesaid order shows that the petitioner therein had sought setting aside of

the order dated 17.10.2003, passed by the Estate Officer against the

petitioner therein, who was working as an Assistant Director (Horticulture) in

CPWD and was allotted a government accommodation, but on his being

posted outside Delhi, the said allotment made in his favour was cancelled,

though he continued to remain in possession of the staff quarter. The

aforesaid petitioner filed a writ petition for directions to the respondent to

regularize the accommodation in his name as was done in the cases of

similarly situated persons, as mentioned in the said writ petition.

5. Unlike the present case, in the aforesaid case, a counter affidavit

was filed by the respondent wherein it was not denied that the Union of

India had regularized government accommodation in the cases of similarly

situated persons. In view of the above, the aforesaid writ petition was

disposed of with directions to the respondent to regularize the government

accommodation in favour of the petitioner therein on the same terms and

conditions as was done in the cases of other similarly situated persons.

6. Guided by the aforesaid judgment, the present case is also

disposed of by quashing the impugned notice dated 26.08.2003 issued by

the respondent No. 2, and directing the respondents to regularize the

government accommodation in favour of the petitioner as per the applicable

rules and on similar terms & conditions and as was done in respect of other

similarly situated persons, mentioned in Annexure P-6 filed in WP(C)

7146/2003. Needful shall be done by the respondents within a period of

eight weeks from today, under a written intimation to the petitioner.

7. The writ petition is disposed of alongwith the pending application

with no order as to costs.

HIMA KOHLI,J

MAY 06, 2009 rkb