P RAM BABU Vs. UNION OF INDIA REP BY ITS GENERAL MANANGER EAST COAST RAILWAY BHUBANESWAR ORISSA STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these writ petitions can be dealt with together and decided as they arise out of the same set of facts and also seek identical relief.

(2.) THERE are 43 petitioners in W.P.No.21509 of 2011, while there are 12 in W.P.No.21962 of 2011. The respondents are the same and they are Ministry of Railways and its Officials, representing the Union of India.

(3.) SRI P.B. Vijay Kumar, who led the arguments has contended that the petitioners or their predecessors in interest have been granted licenses for carrying on small-time business activity and they have been carrying on the authorized business activity only for the past more than three decades and they have also spent considerable amount of their savings for improving upon the land and they are all depending upon the income generated by carrying on the business in the licensed premises and without providing for an alternative site, the petitioners cannot be thrown out suddenly by the respondent authorities. The learned counsel would further submit that the notice of termination has been issued by the Assistant Divisional Engineer, whereas the license clearly stipulated that it is the Divisional Engineer, Waltair, who has to serve any such notice. Therefore, the notice issued by the Assistant Divisional Engineer on 05-07-2011 is issued by an incompetent agency and for this reason alone, the said order dated 05-07-2011 shall be struck down. It is also further contended that without following a fair procedure the petitioners cannot be thrown out or ejected from the licensed premises, as any such action will have an impact upon their quality of living and it would also amount to arbitrary action on the part of the respondents. In that sense, the fundamental rights, guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14 and 21 of our Constitution, are violated. Further, there is a large extent of land available with the Indian Railways at Visakhapatnam, which is mostly lying unutilized and, therefore, the attempt made to eject the petitioners from the premises in question is an arbitrary and unjust act of the Railways. They ought to have found out a suitable alternative site for relocating the petitioners before seeking them to be evicted from the premises in question. It was next contended that right- behind the premises, licensed to the petitioners, there was still some more vacant land left belonging to the Railways and if the Railways genuinely need and desire the land in question for a public purpose, they could have achieved the said objective by asking the writ petitioners to occupy the available land by moving backwards from the premises in question and, instead, they were sought to be thrown out completely. The learned counsel would further submit that resort to the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (henceforth referred to as 'the Public Premises Act'), has got to be made by the respondents and they cannot unilaterally seek to evict the petitioners.