BRIG M B ANAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE impugned order of 26th August 2003, petitioner's statutory appeal under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 stands dismissed being hopelessly barred by time and on merits as well, by holding that the order of Estate Officer was reasoned one. It is disclosed in the impugned order (Annexure P-30) that petitioner was allotted MEO hired accommodation at Rajouri Garden, New Delhi vide letter of 14th June,1999 but petitioner had failed to shift to the said accommodation. Still, petitioner was allotted another accommodation at Carriappa Vihar in Delhi Cantt., as per his entitlement but he had refused to take

(2.) AT the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner had contended that on 25th June, 1999 petitioner was transferred to Kargil and thus became entitled to Priority-I accommodation i.e. separated family accommodation within Delhi Cantt. and so petitioner had legitimately refused the family accommodation offered to petitioner at Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, which was outside Delhi Cantt. and thereafter due to the entitlement of the petitioner, he was allotted a separated family accommodation within the Delhi Cantt. at Carriappa Vihar on 14th February, 2000.

(3.) ON behalf of respondents, it was urged that overall conduct of petitioner clearly shows that default is on the part of petitioner and it is so apparent from the fact that he did not deliberately inform the Station Head Quarters at Delhi Cantt. about change of his posting, which he was required to inform within a week as per Army Orders and that petitioner had Priority-II and not Priority-I for allotment of Separate Family Accommodation and thus, the impugned order ought not to be interfered with, as it does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.