UNION OF INDIA Vs. B N PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Patna High Court dated 29-11-71 by which the High Court has quashed an order of the magistrate, directing the respondent to be evicted from the railway premises. The appeal arises in the following circumstances:

(2.) The respondent thereupon filed a writ petition in the high Court, mainly on the ground that S. 138 could not be invoked as the complaint was not made by an authorized person. It was alleged in the petition before the High Court that the complaint made by the Deputy Chief Commercial Superintendent, was not maintainable, as it should have been filed by the Chief Commercial Superintendent, according to the provisions of the Railways Act. This plea appears to have found favour with the High Court which allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of eviction.

(3.) Appearing in support of the appeal, Mr. U. R. Lalit submitted a short point before us. He argued that S. 138 does not require that the complainant should be specifically authorized by the Railways in order to make a complaint maintainable. All that S. 138 requires is that the application should be filed on behalf of the railway administration. There can be no doubt that the appellant was a high officer of the railway administration, therefore, in a position to file an application for eviction on behalf of the railway administration. Section 138 runs thus:-