KARIEL KUNNANCHERI SHRIDHARAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was at the relevant time working as Police Sub-Inspector (Wireless) S.R.P. Gr. VIII, Nadiad has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for declaring orders Annexure I dated 7-4-1986, Annexure 'N' dated 26-1-1986, Annexure 'S' dated 22-2-1988 and Annexure Z/c dated 19-11-1990 as null and void and ineffective.

(2.) Petitioner, after completing his training in Wireless Operators Course, was appointed as Wireless Operator in January 1961. He was transferred from Kutch to Rajkot and then to Junagadh. In May, 1978 the petitioner was transferred to Rajkot where he was allotted a rent free accommodation. It is stated in the petition by the petitioner that on 12th December, 1980 the petitioner was allotted the quarter and he started staying in the said quarter from 29-1-1981. The petitioner was transferred to Surendranagar in October, 1982. It is stated in paragraph 4(4) that an order of eviction was passed against the petitioner on 18-1-1983, but the petitioner was permitted to occupy the quarter. It is farther stated therein that a fresh eviction order dated'3-11-1983 was passed against the petitioner and the petitioner requested the respondent No. 2 to permit him to continue in the said quarter till 30-11-1983. In paragraph 4(5), it is averred by the petitioner that on 7-12-1983, the petitioner was again transferred to Rajkot Division. It is further stated that Additional Armed Unit issued a circular dated 8-9-1983 on behalf of the respondent No. 1 calling for information from the respondent No. 3 about the officers who had desire to continue their quarters at the old station. It is contended by the petitioner that he requested by letter dated 7-12-1983 for revocation of the eviction order. By letter dated 15-12-1983, the petitioner requested the respondent No. 2 to permit him to continue to occupy his old quarter. It is contended by the petitioner that he was entitled to a rent free accommodation and even though he was entitled to retain the said quarter at his old station of posting by virtue of circular dated 8-9-1983, the respondent No. 2 passed an order on 28-12-1983 for enforcement of the eviction order under Sec. 31(2) of the Bombay Police Act. The petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No. 8 of 1984 against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Rajkot for permanent injunction restraining them from enforcing the impugned eviction order dated 28-12-1983. The petitioner also filed an application for temporary injunction restraining the respondents No. 1 and 2 from dispossessing the petitioner and/or his family from the said quarter and from taking over the possession of the same and the trial Court granted status quo. By virtue of the said order, the petitioner continued to occupy the said quarter. The respondents filed written statement in the said Civil Suit and it was pointed out that the petitioner was posted at Gondal and he was bound to stay at Gondal for 24 hours. It was also pointed out that if the Government could not provide the petitioner a rent free accommodation at Gondal, he would be entitled to get House Rent Allowance, but he could not retain the quarter at Rajkot.

(3.) In paragraph 4 (9) of the petition, the petitioner has averred that the quarter required repairs being very old and hence by letter dated 14-9-1984, the petitioner requested the Deputy Executive Engineer to carry out necessary repairs in the said quarter. It is further averred in paragraph 4(10) of the petition that the Dy. Executive Engineer by his letter dated 18-9-1984 informed the respondent No. 2 that the quarter is beyond repairs and the same is not fit for habitation. The respondent No. 2 issued a memorandum dated 21-9-1984 declaring that the said quarter was not fit for habitation and was beyond repairs and it was liable to be condemned. It is also averred in the petition that the respondent No. 2 informed the Government Pleader, Rajkot City to inform the correct position to the Court in connection with the interim order passed by the Court in Regular Civil Suit No 8 of 1984. It is further stated in paragraph 4 (11) that in view of the communication dated 21-9-1984 from the respondent No. 2, the Government Pleader had informed the Court about the said communication. Thereupon, the petitioner gave an undertaking to the said Court on 15-4-1985 to vacate the said quarter. It is stated in the petition that he vacated the quarter on 12-5-1985. The petitioner also informed the Court on 12-5-1985 that as per the undertaking given by him on 15-4-1985, he vacated the quarter and he was no more in occupation of the quarter.