GHANSHYAM BATHAM Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IA Nos. 3188/2014 and 3262/2014 filed in both the matters are taken up and considering the fact that cause of action for all the petitioners is similar, IAs are allowed.

(2.) HEARD on admission.

(3.) HOWEVER , during the course of hearing, a specific question was asked from the Bench whether the petitioners are occupying the accommodation pursuant to any allotment order/agreement of tenancy, etc.. Learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to show any document, which demonstrates that the petitioners have a legal right to occupy and continue on the accommodation in question. The impugned orders are only notices. If the petitioners have any document to show that they have legal right to occupy and continue in the accommodation, it is open for them to produce the same before the authorities along with their reply. This Court has no doubt that if any such document along with reply is filed, the respondents will consider it in accordance with law before taking any action against the petitioners. Even otherwise, in the impugned notices the respondents have specifically mentioned that if the petitioners do not vacate the accommodation, necessary action will be taken in accordance with law. Thus, I am unable to accept the contention that the respondents have committed any error of law in issuing notice dated 19.5.2014. In the notice itself, the intention is made clear that action will be taken in accordance with law.