Sri Siba Prasad Das vs Union Of India & Ors.

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by The Hon'ble Justice Partha Sarathi Sen)

Affidavit-of-service as filed on behalf of the writ petitioner is taken on record.

The petitioner and the respondent/ Union of India are represented by their respective learned counsel.

None appears on behalf of the respondent nos.2 to 6 despite service.

In this judicial review the subject matter of challenge is the judgment dated 29.07.2026 as passed in Misc. Appeal No.08 of 2021 (Sri Siba Prasad Das vs. The Alloy Steels Plant) by the learned District Judge, Paschim Bardhaman under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (“the said Act” in short).

At the time of hearing learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner submits before this Court that both the Estate Officer while passing the order of eviction dated 16.06.2018, which was impugned in the said appeal, and the learned District Judge by the impugned judgment dated 29.07.2026 have miserably failed to visualize that the respondent no.3 authority had made discrimination with the present writ petitioner in not allotting a quarter as prayed for by the writ petitioner after his retirement though there exists a scheme of the respondent no.3 authority for allotment of such quarter even after retirement of an employee.

Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, however, submits that in the instant writ petition she has not annexed a copy of the memo of appeal preferred before the learned District Judge, Paschim Bardhaman to substantiate her contention.

On careful perusal of the impugned judgment dated 29.07.2026 it, however, appears that no such grounds have been taken by the writ petitioner herein in the said appeal before the learned District Judge. It rather appears that before the learned District Judge in Misc. Appeal No.08 of 2021 the writ petitioner has challenged the authority of the Estate Officer to pass an order of eviction dated 16.06.2018. It further appears that in the said appeal the writ petitioner also took a ground that even after his retirement he is not duty bound to surrender vacant possession of the allotted quarter. An additional ground has also been taken that till disposal of his prayer for allotment of a separate quarter, the Estate Officer has no authority to pass order of eviction against him since it has been placed before the Estate Officer as well as before the Appellate Court that the writ petitioner on medical ground is occupying the said quarter as allotted to him even after his retirement.

Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner further submits that the judgment under judicial review is perverse and having no legal sanctity and is required to be set aside.

Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Union of India supports the impugned judgment.

At the very outset, this Court must not be unmindful that sitting in a judicial review this Court sitting in Writ jurisdiction is not supposed to act as a Court of Appeal and, therefore, this Court shall not interfere with the impugned order unless it is shown that the judgment impugned suffers from material illegality and/or irregularity and/or the decision making process of the Judge/authority has been vitiated for non-consideration of material facts which are available on record and/or the impugned judgment has been passed by the Court/authority by considering the materials which are extraneous in nature.

This Court has meticulously gone through the impugned judgment dated 29.07.2026 as passed in Misc. Appeal No.08 of 2021. It appears that the first Appellate Court while disposing the said appeal duly considered the reported decision of the Hon’ble High Court at Chattishgarh and Bilaspur in Writ Appeal no.76 of 2013 (Bharat Prasad Sharma vs. Chairman-cum-Managing Director and others) as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Cantonment Board & Anr. vs. Church of North India reported in AIR 2011 SC 2339. It appears that the first Appellate Court keeping in mind the spirit of the aforementioned reported decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Chattisgarh came to a logical finding that the respondent no.6 authority, being the Estate Officer, was quite competent to entertain the proceeding under Section 5(1) of the said Act. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner could not show any contrary material to substantiate that the finding of the first Appellate Court in this regard is either perverse or is not justifiable in the eye of law.

It further appears from the impugned judgment dated 29.07.2026 vis-à-vis the order of eviction under Section 5(1) of the said Act dated 16.06.2018 that both the first Appellate Court and the Estate Officer came to a concurrent factual findings that the quarter in question, which is still in occupation of the writ petitioner, was allotted to the writ petitioner in lieu of his service. It is undisputed that the writ petitioner has already retired from his service and both the first Appellate Court and the Estate Officer also came to concurrent factual findings based on prevailing allotment rules of the quarter that an allottee of an employee on completion of his service is duty bound to handover the quarter as allotted to him. In this regard the Estate Officer and the first Appellate Court placed their reliance upon Rule 8 of House Allotment Rules issued by the Steel Authority India Limited.

The learned First Appellate Court has also noticed that simply because the writ petitioner is paying electricity and water charges that does not entail him to occupy the quarter in question sine die.

This Court thus in absence of any perversity and/or glaring illegality finds no reason to interfere with such factual finding in the impugned judgment dated 29.07.2026 as passed by the learned District Judge, Paschim Bardhaman in Misc. Appeal No.08 of 2021.

Consequently, the instant writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.2,50,000/- (rupees two lacs fifty thousand only), which is to be paid by the writ petitioner to the respondent no.2 authority positively within thirty working days from passing of this order. Such exemplary cost is imposed upon the writ petitioner since the writ petitioner is in unlawful occupation of the public premises in question for a period of more than nine years without any justification.

With the aforementioned observations, the impugned judgment dated 29.07.2026 as passed in Misc. Appeal no.08 of 2021 by the learned District Judge, Paschim Bardhaman is hereby affirmed.

In the event the writ petitioner fails and/or neglects to quit, vacate and deliver up khas and vacant possession of the premises bearing no.29/18, Joydev Avenue, B-Zone, Durgapur Steel Tounship, Durgapur-713205 within fifteen days from the day of passing this judgement, the competent authority of the respondents shall execute the order dated 16.06.2018 as passed by the Estate Officer in Case No.Estate-QB/14/2017 soon thereafter.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be delivered to the learned advocates for the parties, upon compliance of all formalities.