GOPI KISHAN Vs. ABDUL MAJID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challanges the cancellation of allotment to him of the residential quarter in dispule and the legality of the notice (Annexure 'G' to the writ petition) dated 5th April, 1965 under section 41) of the Public Premises Eviction of (Unauthorised Occupantsi Act, 1958 (nereinafter called the Act) calling upon the petitioner to show cause on or before 2nd May, 1965 why an order of eviction should not be made against him on the ground that he is in unauthorised occupation of the public premises. According to the petitioners averments, he is a quasi-permanent employee of the Government of India being an Upper Division Clerk in the office of the Trade Mark Registry, Government of India, New Delhi. He was allotted the Government quarter in question in Rama Krishna Puram, New Delhi in January, 1903, the allotment to be effective from 5th February. 1963 when he took its possession. On 19th September, 1964, he came to knew from a memorandum addressed to the Registrar of Trade Marks, Registry Office, Industrial Estate, Okhla, by the Assistant Director of Estates that the staff of Trade Marks Registry had not been declared eligible for accommodation in the general pool it was by means of this memorandum that the allotment of the residential quarter to the petitioner Shri M. L. Joshi was cancelled and he was directed to hand over vacant possession of the quarter in question to the Central Public Witness .D., Enquiry Office. This is Annexure 'B' to the writ petition.

(2.) The argument urged before me is that once this allotment is made in favour of the petitioner, it must be assumed that the petitioner was entitled to the allotment and therefore, this right cannot be taken away except in accordance with law. No rules having been framed for cancelling allotments the order cancelling the petitioner's allotment according to the counsel is arbitrary and discriminatory. It has also been argued that the Assistant Director of Estates who purports to have cancelled the allotment, was not authorised to do so. the ground of attack against the show cause notice is that the officer who issued the show cause notice, namely, the Deputy Director of Estates (Litigation) respondent No. 2, is himself going to adjudicaie upon the merits of the controversy and, therefore, it is violative of the rules of natural justice.

(3.) In the return, it has been pleaded that since the office of the petioner was not declared eligible for participation in Government accommodation from the general pool by the Government of India, the allotment of the quarter allotted to the petitioner was cancelled by the competent authority. After the cancellation of the allotmment, the petitioner was not entitled as of right to retain the quarter in question, with the result that he could be proceeded against under the Act. It has been expressly averred that the allotment in favour of the petitioner was initially made under a mistake of fact that the office of the Trade Mark Registry, where the petitioner was at that time employed, was eligible for allotment of accommodation. This allotment having been made under a mistake of fact, could not afferd any protection to the petitioner. The staff of the Trade Mark Registry including the petitioner had never been declared eligible for Government accomodation by the Competent Authority, namely .the Ministry of works and Housing. In regard to the competency of the authority issuing the show cause notice, it is pleaded that the Deputy Director of Estates (Litigation) respondent No 2 is the Estate Officer under the Act and, therefore, entitled to start proceedings under the Act.