Delhi High Court
Pankaj Bansal vs Superintendent Of Police (Hq), ... on 8 March, 2022
$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 08 March, 2022
+ W.P.(C) 9938/2021 & CM APPL. 30646/2021
PANKAJ BANSAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Nitish Sharma, Adv.
versus
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (HQ), CENTRAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Anil Grover, SPP for CBI with
Mr.Mishal Vij, Mr.Neeraj Bhardwaj
and Mr.Mankaran Ahluwalia, Advs.
for respondent nos. 1 to 3.
Mr.Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC
with Mr.T. P. Singh, Adv. for
respondent no.4/UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA
YASHWANT VARMA, J. (ORAL)
1. This writ petition is thoroughly misconceived and clearly in abuse of
the process of Court for reasons which follow.
2. Undisputedly, the order of 15 October 2020, which is impugned here,
was questioned by the petitioner by preferring W.P.(C) 10727/2020. That
writ petition came to be disposed of by a learned judge on 18 December
2020 in the following terms: -
"3 The petitioner's grievance is that the demand of roughly Rs.97,442/-
along with interest @ 6.85% p.a. w.e.f. 2013 is an exorbitant amount
which he cannot afford, therefore he would like the Department to
reconsider its demand and accommodate his request. The learned counsel
for the petitioner argues that since the petitioner was in the same station,
therefore, on merits, he would be entitled to retain the said residential
accommodation.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BHAWNA
Signing Date:09.03.2022
16:22:44
4 The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent submits, upon
instructions, that there is an undertaking by the petitioner that he would
vacate the premises by a certain date and indeed, it was expected of him
to do so. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there were
compelling circumstances concerning the education of his daughter
because of which he could not vacate the premises on the earlier indicate
date. He was constrained to retain the accommodation for only three
months more. The track record of the petitioner/officer is unblemished.
He continues to serve the CBI diligently.
5 In the circumstances, let this petition be considered as the petitioner's
representation by the respondent. He shall be heard within four weeks
through counsel through video conferencing or through physical hearing,
if so preferred. The Department's decision, shall be communicated to him
promptly.
6 Till then, no precipitate measures shall be taken against the petitioner.
7 The petition, along with pending applications, stands disposed-off in
the above terms."
3. A reading of that order clearly establishes that no challenge to the
respondents having treated the petitioner as being in unauthorised
occupation was urged or addressed. In fact a perusal of that order would
reveal that the challenge to the orders passed under the Public Premises
(Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 was essentially given up
and the only prayer addressed was for the respondents granting the
petitioner further time to vacate the premises. The Court also took note of
the admitted position that the petitioner despite having given an undertaking
to vacate the premises in question, had admittedly failed to abide by that
promise and assurance. It was in the aforesaid backdrop that the writ
petition was disposed of with the Court accepting the submissions
addressed on behalf of the petitioner providing that the same may be treated
as a representation made by him. It was further provided that till the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BHAWNA
Signing Date:09.03.2022
16:22:44
representation of the petitioner is decided, no precipitate action would be
taken.
4. From the aforesaid recordal of facts, it is manifest that once that writ
petition came to be decided and disposed of finally in light of the agreed
position which was struck by parties before and in terms of the ultimate
order passed by the Court, no right survives for a renewed challenge being
raised with respect to the the order of 15 October 2020.
5. The solitary issue which remains relates to the question of damages
for the period of October 2013 to April 2014. The said period represents
the period during which the petitioner remained in occupation of the subject
premises after the retention period granted by the respondents. It becomes
pertinent to note that the respondents had out of grace permitted the
petitioner to retain the premises notwithstanding him having been sent on
deputation to the Ministry of Home in the Union Government. Even after
the period of eight months as had been granted came to an end, the
petitioner failed to vacate the premises in question. The petitioner, in fact,
paid the damages as assessed by the respondents only for the period of
August 2013 to October 2013. His request for further retention of the
accommodation was turned down by the respondents in terms of the order
of 12 November 2013.
6. The submissions addressed by learned counsel resting upon the
provisions made in the CBI Allotment of Residences Rules (Revised),
1988, is clearly self-destructive. According to learned, the chart which
spells out the period of permissive detention does not contemplate a
situation where a person is sent on deputation in the same station. If the
aforesaid submission were accepted, it would essentially result in the Court
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BHAWNA
Signing Date:09.03.2022
16:22:44
coming to conclude that even the permission to retain the premises for a
period of eight months was one which was not authorised under the said
Rules. However, and since as was noted above, the respondents had, in
fact, on an independent interpretation of those Rules, permitted the
petitioner to retain the premises for a period of eight months, the Court does
not hold against the petitioner on this score. Regard must be had to the fact
that those Rules did contemplate a person being sent on deputation. This is
evident from the definition of the expression "transfer" as embodied in
those Rules. However, it did not confer or invest a right to retain
accommodation even while on deputation. The Rules essentially
contemplated allotment of accommodation in favour of officers and
employees who fell under the "administrative control" of the Central
Bureau of Investigation. The submission of learned counsel that since the
Rules were silent on the issue of deputation in the same station, it must be
held that there was no obligation to vacate the premises is noticed only to
be rejected. While concluding it may only be noted that the quantum of
damages as assessed was not questioned by learned counsel for the
petitioner in the course of his oral submissions.
7. Consequently, and for all aforesaid reasons, this writ petition fails
and shall stand dismissed. Pending application shall stand dismissed as
well.
YASHWANT VARMA, J.
MARCH 8, 2022/bh
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BHAWNA
Signing Date:09.03.2022
16:22:44
