Delhi High Court
Delhi Transco Ltd And Ors vs Mohit Singh Jadhav on 11 May, 2016
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2918/2012
Decided on 11th May, 2016
DELHI TRANSCO LTD AND ORS ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr.Manoj K.Singh, Adv.
versus
MOHIT SINGH JADHAV ..... Respondent
Through : Ms.Sunanda Ayare, Adv. along with
Respondent in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
A.K. PATHAK, J. (ORAL)
1. Respondent was working as Telex/Tele Printer Operator with the
petitioner (a Govt. of NCT of Delhi undertaking) and was allotted a type-II
quarter no. F-133, Delhi Transco Colony, Opposite Maharani Bagh, Kilokri,
New Delhi-110014. A departmental inquiry was initiated against the
respondent,which culminated in his termination vide order dated 18th July,
2008. Accordingly, respondent was divested of his right to occupy the
aforesaid quarter and he became an unauthorised occupant. However,
respondent did not vacate the said quarter, accordingly, a notice was issued
to him to vacate the quarter. Respondent did not comply with the notice,
resulting in cancellation of allotment, by the Competent Authority with
effect from 29th October, 2008. Thereafter, petitioner initiated eviction
proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised
Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short, „the PP Act‟) against the respondent, which
culminated into the eviction order dated 21 st July, 2011 of the Estate Officer.
Respondent preferred an appeal being PPA No. 17/2011 before the District
Judge against the order of the Estate Officer. By the order dated 21 st
February, 2012 passed by the District Judge, which is impugned in this writ
petition, appeal has been allowed only on the ground that Estate Officer was
not having jurisdiction to conduct the eviction proceedings, in view of the
notification dated 20th November, 2009.
2. That is how the petitioner is before this Court by way of present writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. The notification on which reliance has been placed by the learned
District Judge reads as under :-
"GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY
OF DELHI
(DEPARTMENT OF POWER)
DELHI SECRETARIAT, 9TH LEVEL, E-WING
NEW DELHI - 110002
No. F.11(60)/2009/Power/3061 Dated the 20th
November, 2009
NOTIFICATION
No.F.11(60)/2009/Power-In exercise of the powers conferred
by Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised
Occupants) Act, 1971 read with the Government of India,
Ministry of Home Affairs Notification f.No.U-
th
11030/2/2003/UTL dated 20 February 2004, the Lt. Governor
of the National Capital Territory of Delhi is pleased to appoint,
with immediate effect, the Sub Divisional Magistrates (SDMs)
of all the sub-divisions under the office of the Divisional
Commissioner, Government of National Territory Capital of
Delhi (GNCTD) as Estate Officers in respect of the public
premises, which have been transferred to the respective
transferee companies as licensee of the GNCTD by virtue of the
Delhi Electricity Reform (Transfer Scheme) Rules, 2001.
Territorial jurisdiction of the Estate Officers shall be the same
as that of the SDMs.
By order and in the name of the Lt.
Governor of the National Capital Territory
of Delhi.
Sd/-
(S.M. Ali)
Dy. Secretary (Power)"
4. By placing reliance on the above notification, learned District Judge
has held that only the Sub Divisional Magistrate of the sub division, within
whose territorial jurisdiction the public premises involved here is located,
was competent to act as the „Estate Officer‟ to conduct the eviction
proceedings. Estate Officer of the petitioner was not competent to conduct
the proceedings, thus, entire proceedings conducted by him were vitiated
and non-est. Petitioner was given opportunity to refer the matter for eviction
under Section 4/5 of the PP Act to the concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate,
if so advised.
5. In the impugned order, learned District Judge has noted that
respondent had not pressed for his re-induction in the premises in question
and had only requested for taking out his goods. Respondent further
submitted that fresh allotment in respect of the premises in question may not
be made to any other person. Respondent was permitted by the District
Judge to take out his entire belongings from the premises in question.
6. Relevant it would be to note here that with effect from 1 st July, 2002 a
transfer scheme was formulated and The Delhi Electricity Reforms Act,
2000 („The Act‟ for short) was brought into force. In terms of the Act and
the rules framed thereunder the activities, assets and liability of erstwhile
Delhi Vidyut Board were distributed/succeeded by various entities. In terms
of the Act more particularly Section 14 read with Section 15 of the Act,
petitioner was established for carrying on transmission business. A perusal
of Rule 2(p) of the Delhi Electricity Reform (Transfer Scheme) Rules, 2001
(„The Rules‟, for short) defines „TRANSCO‟ as Delhi Power Supply
Company Limited, a company incorporated under The Companies Act, 1956
with the principal object of engaging in the business of procurement,
transmission and bulk supply of electricity. Subsequently, name of the
Delhi Power Supply Company Limited has been changed to Delhi Transco
Limited (petitioner). Petitioner is 100 % Govt. owned company and has
been incorporated under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
7. Proviso to Section 3(a) of the PP Act provides that an officer of a
statutory authority shall only be appointed as an estate officer in respect of
the public premises controlled by that authority. Meaning thereby petitioner,
being statutory authority, was competent to appoint its own Estate Officer.
Keeping in mind the Section 3(a), a clarification was issued by the
Additional Secretary (Power), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, vide order dated 3rd
October, 2012, regarding notification dated 20th November, 2009. It was
clarified that said notification was not applicable to the Central Government
companies, that is, DTL/IPGCL and PPCL as these companies are 100%
Govt. companies and satisfy the requirement of "statutory authority" under
Section 3 of the PP Act. The said order reads as under:-
"GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY
OF DELHI
(DEPARTMENT OF POWER)
DELHI SECRETARIAT, 8TH LEVEL, B-WING
NEW DELHI - 110002
No.F.11(60)/2009/Power/317 Dated: 3rd Oct., 2012
To
The Director (HR)
Delhi Transco Ltd.
Shakti Sadan, Kotla Road
New Delhi - 110002
Sub.: Clarification on Notification dated 20.11.2009 reg.
Appointment of SDMs of GNCTD as Estate Officer in respect
of public premises transferred to the respective transferee
companies.
Sir,
This is with reference to Notification no.
F.11(60)/2009/Power/3061 dated 20.11.2009 regarding
appointment of SDMs of GNCTD as Estate Officer in respect
of the public premises, which have been transferred to the
respective transferee companies as licensee of the GNCTD by
virtue of the Delhi Electricity Reform (Transfer Scheme) Rules,
2001.
In this regard, Delhi Transco Limited has sought
clarification from the Department of Power, GNCTD whether
the said notification is applicable to Delhi Transco Limited,
which is 100% Government Company and satisfy the
requirement of "statutory authority" under section 3 of the
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act,
1971.
It is to inform that the matter has been examined in the
department in consultation with Law Department, GNCTD. It
is viewed that the judgment dated 24.08.2007 of Hon‟ble Tis
Hazari Court in the matter of Sh. K.N. Pandey vs. IPGCL was
very clear that the Estate Officer of IPGCL was duly authorised
in the instant case to act as an Estate Officer under section 3 of
the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act,
1971, being 100% Government owned company and satisfy the
requirement of "statutory authority" under section 3 of the said
Act. This Judgment was also upheld by the Hon‟ble High
Court of Delhi in appeal filed by the Appellant/petitioner in
W.P. No. 6579/2007 vide Order dated 07.09.2007.
In view of above facts, I am directed to clarify here that
the Notification dated 20.11.2009 issued by Department of
Power, GNCTD is not applicable to the Government companies
i.e. DTL/IPGCL and PPCL, as these companies are 100%
Government Companies and satisfy the requirement of
"statutory authority" under section 3 of the Public Premises
(Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
Yours faithfully
Encl. as above
Sd/
(Y.V.V.J. Rajasekhar)
Addl. Secretary (Power)"
8. In my view, the learned District Judge has overlooked the proviso to
Section 3(a) of the PP Act and the clarification issued by the Additional
Secretary (Power), while holding that only the Sub Divisional Magistrate
was competent to act as Estate Officer in view of the notification dated 20 th
November, 2009 in respect of the transferee companies. In my view,
petitioner being wholly Government owned company, established under the
Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the notification dated 20 th November,
2009 was not applicable to it and petitioner was competent to appoint its
own Estate Officer, which it had done. Thus, the Estate Officer, who had
conducted the eviction proceedings and passed the eviction order, was
having jurisdiction to conduct the proceedings and pass eviction order.
9. It may be noted that respondent has scant regard for the law.
Respondent was terminated from the service in the year 2008 and is
presently a practising lawyer, however he still continue to illegally occupy
the Government quarter, even though he had agreed to remove his
belongings. He had illegally tapped the electricity and was booked for theft
of electricity and an assessment bill of direct theft for `2,09,167 was raised
on him. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. also filed a criminal complaint under
Section 154 (3) read with Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 against
the respondent for theft of electricity. On 7th October, 2014, Special Judge,
Electricity, Saket took cognizance of the complaint and issued summons to
the respondent. Thereafter, respondent filed a petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C. before this Court for quashing of the summons. It appears that
matter was compromised between the parties and in terms thereof criminal
proceedings were disposed of on payment of `1.5 lacs against the theft bill.
Thereafter, respondent approached this Court for grant of electricity
connection which was declined by the learned Single Judge and LPA
39/2016 filed by the respondent was also dismissed by the Division Bench
vide order dated 25th January, 2016. During the hearing it is pointed out that
respondent has forcibly occupied adjoining vacant flat also.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that petitioner has
filed a contempt petition before the District Judge, therefore, present writ
petition is not maintainable. I do not find any force in this contention since
writ petition has been filed against the order passed in the appeal by the
learned District Judge whereby eviction order has been set aside, which is
not under challenge in the contempt petition. Learned counsel has further
contended that petitioner is not the owner of the quarter now, thus, cannot
seek eviction of the respondent. I do not find any force in this contention
either. Respondent being a licencee, cannot challenge the title of the
petitioner (licensor) in view of the Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872.
11. For the foregoing reasons, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order is
set aside and eviction order of the learned Estate Officer is restored.
A.K. PATHAK, J.
MAY 11, 2016/ga
