RAJESH M. Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NO. 1, P.W.D. HARBOUR AND INTERIOR WATER TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT AND THE PRESIDENT AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, GOVERNMENT QUARTERS ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ or any other order to quash the letter dated 12.07.2011 issued by respondent No. 1 vide Annexure -G. Petitioner is working in Judicial Department as Second Division Assistant. When he was working in the Court of District and Session Judge Mangalore, he applied for the Government accommodation for his stay as he or his family members not having owned house in Mangalore. Respondent No. 3 allotted the Government quarters No. R.S.H. No. 112 situated at Oorva store Mangalore, the same has been occupied by the petitioner in the month of July 1999 after fulfilling all the requirements. On the request of the petitioner, respondent No. 3 renewed the Government quarters to the petitioner vide his office proceedings dated 23.01.2006 at Annexure -A. The petitioner has been transferred from District Court Mangalore to the Civil Judge and JMFC Court Mangalore. Thereafter, in the middle of the academic year 2009 -2010, the petitioner has been promoted as First Division Assistant, transferred and posted to the Civil Judge and JMFC, Court Moodbedri and he/reported to his duty at new station on 01.06.2009. The petitioner therefore applied for permission to retain the Government quarters till the end of academic year 2009 -2010 and he was permitted to retain the quarters till 31.03.2010 and he was given strict instructions to vacate the quarters in the month of April 2010. When the petitioner was about to shift the family to Moodbedri, the petitioner was again transferred from Civil Judge Court Moodbidri to the Civil Judge court Sullia and the petitioner reported the duty at Sullia Civil Court on 01.07.2010. The petitioner thereafter approached the Principal District and Sessions Judge Mangalore, and requested for transfer to Mangalore as no suitable accommodation was available at Sullia, having no other remedy retained the quarters beyond the permitted period from 0105.2010 to 30.06.2011.

(2.) ON 27.04.2011, respondent No. 2 addressed a letter to the petitioner stating that the Government quarters No. 112 was not vacated even after expiry of permitted period, so that the penal rent has been fixed at 5 times of normal rent as per K.C.S.R.s rules and he was directed to make payments of revised rates of rent till vacating the quarters. Petitioner thereafter submitted representation dated 14.05.2011 seeking dispensation of penal rent, as his retention of quarters was beyond his control and no other remedy was available to him. On 28.05.2011, respondent No. 1 addressed a letter to the petitioner stating that the representation dated 14.05.2011 has been rejected and he was directed to remit the total penal rent of Rs. 61,850/ - covering the period from 01.05.2010 to the end of April 2011. The petitioner thereafter submitted another representation dated 29.06.2011 seeking relaxation of penal rent for the reasons stated therein and vacated the Government quarters No. 112 on 25.06.2011. On 05.07.2011, respondent No. 2 addressed a letter to respondent No. 1 stating that Government quarters No. 112 situated at Oorva Store Mangalore occupied by the petitioner has been vacated on 25.06.2011 and also submitted no dues certificate in respect of Electricity, water, rent and licence fee etc., and recommended for return of security deposit vide Annexure -F. The petitioner therefore aggrieved by the letter dated 12.07.2011 issued by respondent No. 1 directing him to pay penal rents, filed this writ petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 2 issued a letter dated 05.07.2011 to respondent No. 1 stating that the petitioner vacated the quarters on 25.06.2011 and submitted no dues certificate in respect of electricity, water, rent and licence fee. Therefore, question of paying penal licence fee does not arise in view of the no dues certificate issued by respondent No. 2. When the petitioner approached respondent No. 1 for return of the security deposit of Rs. 500/ -, he was asked to pay penal licence fee.