CHANDRASHEKAR PRASAD Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA HEALTH SYSTEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has sought for quashing the public auction notification dated 16.6.2012 issued by the first respondent vide Annexure-C, on the ground that he had occupied the quarters/premises in question just three months prior to the date of the impugned notification. Petitioner has also sought for quashing the notice at Annexure-B, dated 27.6.2012 by which the petitioner is directed to vacate the premises which is to be demolished, within three days from the date of receipt of the said notice.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY, the property in question is belonging to the first respondent, i.e., Health Department of the State Government. The petitioner is District Ophthalmic Surgeon. He had occupied the quarters about three months prior to the dates of the impugned notices. Respondent No.1 having found that the quarters in question is in dilapidated condition, thought it fit to demolish the said quarters with a view to construct the new quarters. Merely because the petitioner has occupied the quarters just three months prior to the date of impugned notices, it cannot be said that the petitioner has got right to continue in the said quarters till he is transferred from that place. If the petitioner is not provided with the official quarters, he is entitled to House Rent Allowance. By utilizing the House Rent allowance, the petitioner may occupy any other private house. Merely because some inconvenience will be caused to the petitioner, the respondents cannot be restrained from demolishing the building, particularly when the same is in dilapidated condition. It is for respondent No.1 to decide about the strength of the building. Since the first respondent on facts has decided to demolish the building and to auction the materials based on fact situation, this Court will not interfere with the said decision. It is by now well settled that policy matters of the State cannot be interfered with unless the decisions of the policy makers are per se illegal and arbitrary. Hence, no interference is called for. Accordingly, writ petition fails and the same stands dismissed.