KARAMBIR SINGH Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Additional District Judge by the impugned order dated 25th April, 2007 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and upheld the order passed by the Estate Officer.

(2.) Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned orders are perverse as the inspection report was not furnished, has been misread and is per se unbelievable. He further states that the petitioner had taken permission from the respondent to share the accommodation with one Smt. P.S. Malini, UDC in CPWD w.e.f. 1st April, 2001 to 31st August, 2001. He relies upon telephone bills of telephone No.6183809 in the name of Ms. S.N. Ramamani with the address Sector-8/357, R.K. Puram, New Delhi.

(3.) A writ Court is not an appellate Court that can examine facts as an appellate Court. This Court is concerned with the decision making process and not merits. The aforesaid contentions of the petitioner have been duly considered and examined in the detailed order dated 25th April, 2007 passed by the Additional District Judge. With regard to the inspection report and contents thereof, learned Additional District Judge has referred to statement dated 16th December, 2002 made by the petitioner before the departmental appellate authority against the order of cancellation of allotment dated 6th June, 2002. The relevant portion of the statement of the petitioner recorded by the appellate authority reads as under:-