MADHUSUDAN TIVARI Vs. HOUSE RENT AND ACCOMMODATION CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are these : The premises which is in the occupation of the petitioners was notified for allotment on the assumption that it was vacant. Notice was issued to the petitioners and the petitioners submitted that there is no vacancy and that they are in actual occupation of the premises in question However the first respondent rejected the objections of the petitioners and allotted the premises to the third respondent. Aggrieved by the order of the first respondent, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the second respondent who is the Dy. Commr., Bangalore District, Bangalore. The appeal was preferred on 13-3- 1986 against the impugned order of the first respondent dated 7-3-1986 passed in case No. HRC/ALT/No. 61/1986. Sub- R. 48 sequent to the filing of the appeal, the petitioners have not been heard by the appellate authority even to this day. The petitioners had also filed an application for grant of stay of the impugned order along with the appeal. The grievance of the petitioners is that even to move the appellate Court for an order of interim stay, the Presiding Officer was never available and no date of hearing was given to the petitioners. In these circumstances, the petitioners entertained a reasonable apprehension that the 3rd respondent would come and occupy the premises and that the petitioners would be dislodged from the premises. Therefore petitioners approached this Court and obtained an order of interim stay, staying the operation of the order passed by the first respondent under Annexure-A. The question for consideration is to what relief the petitioners are entitled to in the circumstances of the case.

(2.) This is the third writ petition I have come across in which a public authority discharging the duties of quasi judicial nature is not available to the members of the public for the redressal of their grievance which the law ensures under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. By this time the principle is well settled that a public authority cannot afford to ignore the duties and functions which are attached to its office particularly in the course of disposal of appeals against the orders which have affected the citizens, in the matter of enjoyment of their property and especially the right to enjoy the possession of house property.

(3.) The apathy displayed by the second respondent in not even fixing the date of hearing after an appeal is preferred amounts to total inaction which tatamounts to abuse of discretion. It may not be inappropriate to observe in the facts and circumstances of this case that the line of demarcation between the judicial and quasi judicial action is extremely faint and even though the administrative authority may not have all the attributes of a judicial authority it is expected to act judicially and reasonably nevertheless. In the facts and circumstances of this case. I am satisfied that the petitioners have a right to the relief of a direction from this Court to the second respondent for fixing the date of hearing and for disposing of the appeal after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing in accordance with law.