J C PANT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. In this writ petition, the petitioner is essentially aggrieved by the order of the Estate Officer dated 07.07.1999 which has been confirmed in Appeal u/s 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the learned ADJ vide judgment dated 16.03.2002 whereby the petitioner has been ordered to pay a sum of Rs2,00,338/- assessed as damages on account of the purported unauthorised occupancy by the petitioner of the premises C-II/10, Moti Bagh-I, New Delhi for the period 01.09.1997 to 26.10.1998.

(2.) The petitioner is a retired Civil Servant and in the course of his employment he was allotted the aforesaid premises. He retired on 31.12.1996 and thereafter his allotment was cancelled w.e.f. 30.04.1997. Further four months extension was granted to the petitioner on medical grounds. However, the petitioner vacated the premises on 26.10.1998. In this context, the Estate Officer initially issued a notice u/s 7 for recovery of damages for the alleged period of unauthorised occupancy, i.e., from 01.09.1997 to 26.10.1998. The petitioner contested the same. It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the initial order of the Estate Officer dated 07.07.1999 did not contain any reasons. However, during the course of arguments in the appeal before the learned ADJ, it was revealed to the petitioner that certain reasons had been recorded on the file. It also transpired that there was an office memorandum dated 17.11.1997 issued by the Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment, Directorate of Estates, New Delhi whereby guidelines for discretionary allotment of Central Pool Residential Accommodation in Delhi were prescribed. It is the counsel's contention that the guidelines were applicable and in particular paragraph 4 thereof which is set out hereinbelow:-

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also pointed out two letters written by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare dated 01.05.1997 and 06.11.1997 which were written to the Ministry of Urban Development for allotting the aforesaid premises to the petitioner in public interest in view of his position as Chairman of an NGO, namely, REACHA, as well as Chairman of High Level Central Team constituted under the directions of the Cabinet Secretary vide the Ministry's ( Ministry of Health and Family Welfare) order dated 24.09.1997. It is, therefore, the learned counsel's contention that the petitioner was eligible for an allotment and the rejection that was made by the Ministry of Urban Development by its letter dated 29.12.1997 which is on record is not in accordance with the aforesaid guidelines inasmuch as the power to approve allotments is specifically given by the guidelines to the Cabinet Committee on Accommodation. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Cabinet Committee on Accommodation was the only authority which was empowered to accept or reject the recommendations for allotment of residential accommodation to the petitioner.