Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director Hmt Limited vs G Ananda on 6 March, 2025
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:9859
WP No. 15713 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 15713 OF 2020 (GM-PP)
BETWEEN:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
HMT LIMITED
A GOVT. OF INDIA UNDERTAKING COMPANY,
NO.59, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU-560 032,
REP. BY MR. M.R.V. RAJA S/O LATE SRINIVAS,
GENERAL TECHNICAL MANAGER,
COMMON SERVICES DIVISION,
PRESENTLY KNOWN AS
AUXILIARY BUSINESS DIVISION,
JALAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 013.
2. THE ESTATE OFFICER,
ESTATE DEPARTMENT,
HMT LIMITED,
COMMON SERVICES DIVISION,
JALAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 013,
REP. BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,
Digitally signed by
SRI. B.A. UMESH.
PREMCHANDRA M R ... PETITIONERS
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI. ANANTHARAMA C., ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
AND:
MR. G. ANANDA
S/O LATE G. GOPAL,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO: A-28,
SECTOR IV, HMT TOWNSHIP,
JALAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 013.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. T.G. SUDHA, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:9859
WP No. 15713 of 2020
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN
RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR DICTATING
ORDERS, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, SITTING AT
DHARWAD BENCH, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Sri.Anantharama.C., counsel for the petitioners and
Smt.T.G.Sudha., counsel for the respondent have appeared in
person.
2. The short facts are these:
The HMT Limited Company, a Public Sector Undertaking
was incorporated in the year 1953 by the Government of India
as a Machine Tool Manufacturing Company. The Estate Officer
of HMT Limited is engaged in the Administration and
Maintenance of the Company quarters which are 'Public
Premises'.
The respondent - G. Ananda while he was in service,
Quarters No.A-28, Sector IV, HMT Township, Jalahalli was
allotted to him. He retired from service on 31.01.2013 and was
permitted to retain the quarters up to 30.04.2013 at his
request letter dated 01.03.2013. Thereafter, he did not vacate
the quarters and petitioner No.2 issued a show cause notice on
NC: 2025:KHC:9859
03.07.2015 and initiated the action for eviction of the
respondent from the quarters as per the Public Premises
(Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants), 1971, after giving
sufficient opportunity by following principles of natural justice.
The second petitioner passed the Eviction Order vide Ref.HMTL-
CSD/Eviction/A-28/2018-19 dated:21.09.2018. The respondent
challenged the said order before the XXII Addl. City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-7) in M.A.No.16/2018. The
Appellate Court vide order dated 10.07.2019 set aside the
order dated 21.09.2018 and allowed the appeal. Under these
circumstances, the petitioners have filed the captioned Writ
Petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of
Writ Petition.
3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several
contentions.
Sri.Anantharama.C., in presenting his arguments
strenuously urged that the Estate Officer of the Company had
given sufficient opportunity to the respondent during the
eviction proceeding; and the respondent had engaged an
employee to assist in the eviction proceedings. It is also
NC: 2025:KHC:9859
submitted the principles of Natural Justice are followed by the
Estate Officer. He argued by saying that the respondent
requested the second petitioner to grant time till 2016 May to
vacate the quarters but has failed to do so. Counsel vehemently
contended that the respondent must approach the proper
forum to claim his arrears and retirement benefits and not hold
back the quarters allotted to him. Among other grounds, he
submitted that the order of the Appellate Court is untenable
and hence the writ petition may be allowed.
Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the
following orders and judgments.
1. HMT RETIRED EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION V/S.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS IN WRIT PETITION
NO.54203/2018 DISPOSED OF ON 09.11.2022.
2. HMT RETIRED EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION V/S.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS IN WRIT APPEAL
NO.25/2023 DISPOSED OF ON 14.11.2023.
3. M/S. HMT MACHINE TOOLS LIMITED AND OTHERS
V/S. MR. JAYARAM.V. L AND OTHERS IN WRIT
APPEAL NO.955/2023 DISPOSED OF ON 11.06.2024.
NC: 2025:KHC:9859
4. SRI.C. NAGARAJ V/S. HMT WATCH FACTORY I & II
AND OTHERS IN WRIT APPEAL NO.15848/2011
DISPOSED OF ON 29.11.2012.
Counsel Smt.T.G.Sudha., in presenting her arguments
submits that a detailed statement of objections is filed and the
same may be taken note of. Counsel submits that the inquiry
conducted by HMT Limited is illegal and the same has been
conducted without any authority of law. They have issued the
notification against the superseded notification. The inquiry
conducted by the Estate Officer is illegal. She also contends
that the appointment of the Estate Officer is illegal and the
officer concerned has misused the power. She argued by saying
that the authority is harassing the occupants of the quarters
and demanding exorbitant rents. Lastly, she submits that the
respondent has no objection to vacating the quarters if HMT
Limited clears all monetary dues to him.
4. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers
with utmost care.
5. The facts are sufficiently stated and they do not
require reiteration. The issue falls around a narrow compass
NC: 2025:KHC:9859
and relates to the stay on public premises/ Quarters by a
retired employee post-retirement period.
6. Suffice it to note that the petitioner was an
employee of the company and was allotted quarters in HMT
Township. It is pivotal to note that he retired from service in
2013, however, he did not vacate the quarters. After the
issuance of the show cause notice, the proceedings were
initiated to evict him. The respondent objected to the power
and authority of the Estate Officer. However, the issue about
the appointment of the Estate officer is no longer res -integra.
The respondent attempted to contend that he was not given an
opportunity. In this Court also, he has adhered to the said
contention. I decline to accept the said contention. The reason
is simple and apparent. The true copy of the original order is
furnished along with the writ petition and the same is marked
as Annexure-C. A perusal of the same reflects that the
Company adhered to principles of natural justice. Furthermore,
despite granting several opportunities, the defendant did not
submit any documents. Referring to the material on record, an
eviction order was passed.
NC: 2025:KHC:9859
A good deal of argument is canvassed about the alleged
illegality in the conduct of the inquiry proceedings and the
decline of monetary benefits. The issue involved in the present
writ petition is about the eviction order under the provisions of
the Public Premises Act hence, the contentions about the
inquiry proceedings, non-payment of monetary benefits etc.,
cannot be looked into. It is significant to note that the
respondent retired from service back in 2013 however, he
continued to stay in a quarters post-retirement period for
almost twelve years which amounts to an unauthorised
occupation and the same is contrary to the provisions contained
under the Act. The respondent contends that he would vacate
the Quarters if and only if HMT Limited clears all monetary dues
to him. I may venture to say that the audacity of the
respondent cannot be pardoned. He is occupying the quarters
at the cost of the other government servants. In my view, such
a person does not deserve any sympathy much less a
misplaced sympathy. The Appellate court has overlooked this
aspect of the matter and erroneously set aside the eviction
order which is not correct. I may venture to say that the
Appellate Court has failed to have regard to the relevant
NC: 2025:KHC:9859
considerations and disregarded relevant matters. Therefore,
this Court deems it proper to quash the order passed by the
Appellate Court and confirm the order passed by the original
authority.
Counsel for the petitioners has cited several cases
referred to supra, but I do not think that the law is in doubt.
Each case turns on its facts. The present case is also tested in
light of the aforesaid orders and judgments.
7. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order dated
10.07.2019 passed by the court of XXII Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge Bengaluru (CCH No.7) in M.A.No.16/2018 vide
Annexure-A is quashed. The order passed by the Estate Officer
dated 21.09.2018 is confirmed. The respondent is directed to
vacate the Quarters immediately.
8. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed.
Sd/-
(JYOTI MULIMANI)
JUDGE
MRP, CLK
