G.P.RAO Vs. STATE OFGUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and set aside the impugned order of recovery dated 11/07/2003 charging the market rent for the premises occupied by the petitioner for the period beginning from 1997 till 2003.

(2.) THE petitioner was transferred in the office of the Executive Engineer, R & B Department, Mechanical Division, Vadodara in the year 1994 and was allotted the quarter. It appears that since he was occupying the higher category quarter another allotment of the category of the quarter for which he was entitled was offered. However, the petitioner did not accept the said allotment of the quarter against which notices were issued against the petitioner to vacate the higher category quarter. It appears that thereafter in the month of May, 1997 the petitioner came to be transferred to Ankleshwar and, therefore, the petitioner was served with the notice to vacate the said quarter as per the Government Resolution dated 28/07/1989. It appears that under the said Government Resolution the Government employee, who has been allotted the government quarter, is required to vacate the same on his transfer. Despite the above and even service of several notices calling upon the petitioner to vacate the quarter at Vadodara failing which he was liable to pay the market rent, the petitioner did not vacate the same till his retirement in the year 2003 and, therefore, the petitioner was called upon to make the payment of Rs. 2,26,800/- being the market rent for the period between 1997-2003. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned recovery of Rs. 2,26,800/-, being the market rent of the quarter for the period between 1997-2003, the petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At the outset, it is required to be noted that as such the amount of Rs. 2,26,800/- is already deducted by the concerned Department from the retirement benefits of the petitioner.

(3.) HEARD the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the year 1997, the petitioner came to be transferred from Vadodara to Ankleshwar and, therefore, as per the Government Resolution dated 28/07/1989 the petitioner was required to hand over possession of the quarter allotted to him at Vadodara. After he was transferred from Vadodara to Ankleshwar, he was not entitled to retain the quarter at Vadodara. It is to be noted that so far as the son of the petitioner is concerned, he completed his third year graduation in the year 1997 itself. From the record, it appears that number of notices were issued upon the petitioner for the period between 1998 to 2002 calling upon the petitioner to vacate the quarter at Vadodara failing which the market rent will be charged and despite the service of said notices, the petitioner continued to occupy the quarter at Vadodara till he retired in the year 2003. Merely because after a period of three years thereafter the petitioner again came to be transferred to Vadodara was no ground to continue to occupy the quarter at Vadodara by the petitioner and/or charge standard rent. On re-transfer again the petitioner could have been allotted the quarter subject to availability and need of other persons, who were required to be allotted the quarter for the period between 1997 and thereafter. Under the circumstances, when despite several notices, the petitioner did not return the possession of the quarter at Vadodara and continued to occupy the quarter at Vadodara, though not entitled to and thereafter when the impugned recovery is ordered charging the market rent for the period for which the petitioner occupied the quarter at Vadodara, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the authority in charging the market rent. Considering the affidavit-in-reply, the market rent for the aforesaid period is absolutely justified and in accordance with the Government Resolution and the policy of the Government. Now so far as the case of one Mr. Jhala upon which much reliance has been placed has been dealt with by the respondent-Government in the affidavit-in- reply in paragraph 18 and it is submitted that the case of Mr. Jhala is different from the case of the petitioner. In the case of Shri Jhala the Government in fact considered his application and granted extension and passed an order to charge the standard rent. No such extension and/or order to charge the standard rent has been passed in favour of the petitioner. As stated hereinabove, despite number of notices, the petitioner continued to occupy the quarter at Vadodara.