Delhi High Court
Union Of India vs Mr. Ram Lal on 8 April, 2010
Author: Kailash Gambhir
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C) No. 8324/2007
Judgment delivered on: April 08, 2010
Union of India. ......Petitioner.
Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, Adv.
versus
Mr. Ram Lal. ..... Respondent.
Through: Mr. Virender Kumar Singh, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR,
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest? No
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. Oral:
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order
W.P.(C) No. 8324/2007 Page 1 of 6
of the learned Additional District Judge, New Delhi passed in PPA
No. 26/2005, thereby setting aside the order passed by the Estate
Officer.
2. Ms. Rajdipa Behura, counsel for the petitioner
assailing the order passed by the learned Additional District
Judge submits that the learned Appellate Court failed to
appreciate that the show cause notice was duly served upon the
respondent through affixation. Counsel further submits that the
respondent had deliberately locked his house from 7.10.89 to
16.10.89 and because of such avoidance by the respondent, show
cause notice was pasted by the concerned officer of the
petitioner on the main door of the railway quarter as was
allotted to the respondent. Counsel further submits that the
learned Appellate Court failed to appreciate the fact that
allotment of the railway quarter was cancelled as the same was
sublet by the respondent in favour of one Mr. Hyat Singh and his
family. Counsel states that the Appellate Court also failed to
appreciate that the respondent neither submitted any reply to the
show cause notice nor to the cancellation order and therefore, in
the absence of any reply filed by the respondent, no fault can be
W.P.(C) No. 8324/2007 Page 2 of 6
found with the findings of the Estate Officer, who based on the
material on record, found the railway quarter sublet in favour of
Hyat Singh. Counsel further submits that once the allotment of
said railway quarter was cancelled by the Estate Officer vide
notice dated 4.6.90 after being duly satisfied that the respondent
has unauthorisedly sublet the quarter, therefore, after
cancellation of his allotment, the respondent was liable to pay
damages for the period of unauthorized occupation. Counsel
thus submits that the order passed by the learned Appellate
Court is ex-facie illegal as the learned Appellate Court failed to
appreciate the valid and just reasons given by the Estate Officer.
3. Mr. Singh, counsel for the respondent, on the other
hand supports the order passed by the learned Additional District
Judge. Counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent
had throughout denied any subletting of the said allotted
government accommodation in favour of any person. Counsel
further submits that the respondent clearly took a stand before
the Estate Officer that he had never received any show cause
notice or cancellation letter. Counsel also submits that the
learned Additional District Judge after having examined the
W.P.(C) No. 8324/2007 Page 3 of 6
records of the Estate Officer came to the conclusion that there
was no due service of either the show cause notice or the
cancellation order. Counsel further submits that Mr. Avtar
Singh, who is alleged to have carried out the inspection of the
said premises, was not produced by the petitioner before the
Estate Officer to prove the factum of subletting. Counsel thus
urges that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by
the Appellate Court.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the records.
5. The case of the respondent before the Estate Officer
as well as before the Appellate Court was that he had never
received any show cause notice and therefore, he was not given
any opportunity to explain the correct facts before the Estate
Officer. Indisputably, it was proved on record that the
respondent was never served with the show cause notice in
person and in fact his premises were found locked when an
attempt was made to serve show cause notice to him. After
having found the premises locked, show cause notice was served
by affixation. It is thus quite apparent that the petitioner did not
W.P.(C) No. 8324/2007 Page 4 of 6
take sufficient steps to effect personal service of show cause
notice on the respondent.
6. Service of notice by affixation no doubt is a valid mode
of service but in any case the same should not be resorted to at
the very threshold. The affixation can only be resorted to in the
circumstances where it is found that sufficient efforts have been
made to effect service upon the addressee and there is willful
avoidance on the part of the addressee to receive the notice. In
the present case, the learned court clearly found that no such
efforts were made by the petitioner to serve the said show cause
notice upon the respondent and at the first go the same was
served through pasting when the premises of the respondent
were found locked. Another illegality committed by the petitioner
is quite visible as the petitioner failed to produce its witness, Mr.
Avtar Singh, who as per the petitioner, had inspected the
premises and found the premises being sublet in favour of one
Hyat Singh. Even the said witness Avtar Singh did not collect
any documentary evidence to show that the said premises were
sublet by the respondent in favour of Hyat Singh as neither any
statement of neighbours was recorded by him nor any evidence
W.P.(C) No. 8324/2007 Page 5 of 6
was collected by him to show presence of Hyat Singh in the said
premises.
7. It would be relevant to reproduce the following para
from the impugned order as under:
"I have perused the impugned order. It is seen that the
Estate Officer without satisfying himself about the service of
notice for cancellation, has concluded that the appellant failed to
show cause as to why the allotment of the said premises be not
cancelled from the date of subletting despite service of show
cause notice. In view of the challenge to cancellation of
allotment, it was incumbent upon the Estate Officer to satisfy
himself about subletting and cancellation of allotment on that
basis."
8. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any
illegality or perversity in the impugned order.
9. There is no merit in the petition and the same is
hereby dismissed.
April 08, 2010 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
mg
