J P TIWARI Vs. ESTATE OFFICER GENERAL MANAGER CAWNPORE WOOLEN MILLS BRANCH THE BRITISH INDIA CORP LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri A.S. Rai learned counsel for the petitioners who are 11 in number and Sri C.B. Gupta who has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2. Notice for respondent no. 3 (Union of India) has been served on the Additional Solicitor General of India. The petitioners allege to be employees of the Cawnpore Woolen Mills, Kanpur and were allotted certain quarters for their residence during the course of their employment. The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is against the initiation of proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act by the respondent no. 1 who is described as Estate Officer/General Manager, Cawnpore Woolen Mills Branch and the respondent no. 2. The contention is that the notices issued to the petitioners under the Act are liable to be quashed because the Estate Officer (respondent no. 1) had no jurisdiction to issue the said notices primarily for the reason that the lease deed executed by the Government in favour of respondent no. 2 (The British India Corporation Ltd.) has expired as far back as in the year 2001 and as such, they are neither the lessees nor have any administrative or other control over the premises in question and hence the premises is neither a public premises nor the respondents can proceed against the petitioners. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 has submitted that the premises in question is under the effective control of respondent nos. 1 and 2 and by notification dated 07.05.08, the respondent no. 1 has been duly nominated as the Estate Officer (Prescribed Authority) under the Act. He therefore states that the notice issued to the petitioners cannot be quashed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it will be seen that the averments in the writ petition are relating to the premises in question given by the State Government to the British India Corporation Ltd. on lease. In case, the lease has expired, admittedly the land would revert back to the State Government. The definition of Public Premises in Section 2(e)(i)(ii) clearly defines the Public Premises and therefore even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the British India Corporation Ltd. is no more the lessee of the premises in question or that it has no administrative or other control of the premises in question once it reverts back to the State Government, it continues to be a public premises. Therefore, the submission that the premises are not public premises cannot be accepted. Insofar as the jurisdiction of the Estate Officer (respondent no. 1) to issue notice under the Act is concerned, the contention of the respondents is based upon the notification of the Central Government appointing him under the Act whereas the petitioner's contention is that after expiry of the lease, such notification would have no meaning because the respondent no. 2 has no control over the premises in question and the lease has expired. If that be the contention of learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate that such issue of jurisdiction should be raised by the petitioner before the authority concerned (respondent no. 1) and as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner, such an objection relating to lack of jurisdiction of the Estate Officer has already been filed by the petitioners in their cases one of which has been filed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. Since the objection has already been filed, it would be appropriate that the question of jurisdiction of the Estate Officer should be decided by the Officer himself in accordance with law since the jurisdiction of the court or the authority is an issue which has to be decided first of all before proceeding further with the case. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, there is no reason made out in this writ petition to interfere in the impugned notices or to quash the proceedings pending before respondent no. 1. However, the respondent no. 1 is directed and should decide the objection of his jurisdiction raised by the petitioners at the first instance before proceeding to adjudicate upon the notices issued under the Public Premises Act. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No order is passed as to costs.