HINDUSTAN STEEL LIMITED Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE DURG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india for a writ of certiorari seeking to quash the orders of the District Judge, durg, (Annexures 'm' and N/1 ).

(2.) THE Petitioner Company Hindustan Steel Limited has a steel plant at bhilai and a large township under the administrative control of the company. The company is a Government Undertaking and it is not disputed that the area under its administrative control would be governed by the Public Premises {eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (Act No. 40 of 1971) (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). For the convenience of the employees of the petitioner residing in different sectors of the Bhilai Nagar township, the Company has either constructed shops and given them on lease or has given on licence plots of land to businessmen for construction of temporary structures over them for running shops. Respondent No. 3 was allotted a plot admeasuring 20' x 40' in sector No. 1 of the Bhilai Nagar. Respondent No. 3 availed of the allotment and after duly executing an agreement (Annexure E) constructed a shop over it. It appears, from the allegations made in the petition, that respondent No. 3 made extensive encroachment and made unauthorised construction over the plot allotted to her. Respondent No. 3 was then asked to remove the unauthorised construction, but she did not pay any heed to such communications. Thereafter, the petitioner moved the Estate Officer, appointed under the Act, for her eviction from the premises. The Estate Officer, after hearing both the parties, according to the procedure prescribed under the Act, passed an order (Annexure-J) directing respondent No. 3 to vacate the plot and to pay dues, damages and mesne profits. The order of the Estate Officer was passed under sections 5 (1) and 7 of the Act.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 3 filed an appeal against the order of the Estate officer before the appellate officer, who is the District Judge, Durg at Rajnandgaon on 18-9-1974. Respondent No. 3 also applied for an ad interim stay. The District Judge, by his order dated 5-10-1974, stayed the operation of the order of the Estate Officer subject to respondent No. 3 depositing Rs. 5000 within a period of 10 days. Respondent No. 3 had not deposited the amount of Rs. 5000, when on 20-12-1974 the appeal itself was dismissed in default for failure to appear on the date of hearing. On 21-12-1974, i. e. , on the next day, respondent No. 3 filed an application for restoration of the matter.