VIJENDERA KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, Vijendera Kumar, has filed the present petition, seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the respondents' action in evicting him from the official accommodation. Petitioner also seeks a mandamus to the respondents to allot him a house of his entitlement in BTPS Staff Colony, Badarpur, New Delhi and compensate him for the damages suffered. Exemplary costs are also sought.

(2.) Petitioner was employed with National Power Training Institute (in short NPTI) under the Ministry of Power, Government of India and was posted at the Regional Power Training Institute (in short RPTI), Badarpur, New Delhi. Petitioner was promoted in the year 1997 as Deputy Director (Technical) "and posted at the NPTI, Headquarters, Faridabad. Petitioner had been allotted accommodation in the BTPS Staff Colony at a monthly licence fee. This licence fee was initially Rs. 75/- per month and was raised to Rs. 110/-permonth and then Rs. 167/- permonth for the period November, 1992 to 31.3.1993. Petitioner was allotted higher type of accommodation and at his request, on medical grounds, he was also allotted a ground floor accommodation at C-19, Type C. Petitioner claims that he was having dual charge. His services were required round-the-clock for the maintenance of Simulator, which is critical for the functioning of thermal plants. Petitioner was attending to the Simulator at Faridabad. Besides, emergency work at Badarpur Simulator.

(3.) BTPS, who had allotted the quarter in BTPS Township to the petitioner required NPTI to make regular recovery and deposit the same with BTPS. BTPS required 10 per cent of the basic salary to be recovered from the employee. Accordingly, licence fee was to be collected on the said basis. Vide order dated 3.11.2000, BTPS authorities took a decision to cancel the allotment of the quarter to the petitioner, as their petitioner was in default of the water and electricity charges as well as Charges payable for occupation on the above basis. BTPS authorities further required the petitioner to clear the arrears. In the event, notices under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 to show cause as to why an order of eviction should not be made and another notice under Sub-section (4) of Section 7 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 were issued. Petitioner claims to have sent a reply on 31.1.2000, denying the charges and asserting that licence fee was regularly being paid by the department and no further revision had been communicated to him and he is not liable to pay the same. Time was sought for appearance. As the petitioner did not appear, order was passed on 12.4.2002 under Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. Another order dated 3.11.2002, assessing the damages @ Rs. 76,488/- together with interest at 12 per cent per annum was passed. It is the admitted position that despite the notices having been duly served under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, petitioner did not appear before the authorities, culminating in passing of the aforesaid two orders. Petitioner did not avail of the statutory remedies against the said orders. In the event, on 12.5.2002, petitioner was evicted from the premises.