AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By virtue of the impugned order, the Estate Officer, in a proceeding under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971,
disposed of an application for recall filed by the applicant/opposite party and permitted the present opposite party (applicant before the Estate Officer),
to file its written notes of argument. The prayer of the present petitioner was for being permitted to file its written objection in the said proceeding and
also the said written notes of argument.
It is evident from the impugned order that the prayer for filing written objection was not allowed and it must be deemed that such portion of the prayer
was refused. The grievance of the petitioner is that, the Estate Officer does not have power to recall or review of his own order and the entire ambit
of power, which can be exercised by an Estate Officer, has been specified in Section 8 of the Act of 1971. After hearing both sides, it is apparent that
the Estate Officer erred in law in holding that there is no bar for the estate officer to recall or review his order, inasmuch as no specific power in that
regard has been conferred on the estate officer.
However, the order impugned in the present revisional application does not amount to recall or review of any order, by which any substantial right had
accrued in favour of either of the parties. What was done by the impugned order was merely that the Estate Officer rearranged his business.
Previously, the next date had been fixed for passing of judgment in the matter, but, in view of certain doubts arising in the mind of the Estate Officer,
which were specified in the impugned order, the Estate Officer only relegated such date of passing judgment, to after filing of written notes of
argument by the present opposite party. Undoubtedly, in view of the present opposite party being permitted to file written notes of argument, thereby
canvassing new issues, the present petitioner has a right to argue on such written notes, to which the present opposite party has a right to reply.
However, the right of the Estate Officer to arrange his business for the purpose of passing an order under Section 5 of the Act of 1971, the power of
rearrangement of business is in-built in Section 5 of the Act of 1971. As such, there is no justification of interfering with the impugned order, save and
except, that the parties ought to be given a further opportunity to argue on the contents of the written notes of argument.
Accordingly, C.O. No. 1994 of 2018 is disposed of on contest, thereby modifying the impugned order dated June 28, 2018 to the extent that both
parties would be permitted to advance oral arguments on the contents of the written notes of argument, which the present opposite party would file
pursuant to the impugned order.
It is expected that the Estate Officer, upon giving such opportunity, would fix an early date for disposal of the matter. There will, however, be no order
as to costs. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.