MALAYKUMAR BANERJEE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Order arises out of an application under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India and is directed against the judgment in Misc. Appeal No. 87 of 1991 dated 18/05/1992 affirming the order passed by the Estate Officer, South Eastern Railway, Kharagpur in Eviction Case No. E / 80 / 90 / 1-III under Section 5(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.

(2.) The petitioner was given licence by South Eastern Railway through the office of the Chief Hospital Superintendent and Local Health Authority, Kharagpur to manufacture, stock, distribute and exhibit for sale tea, snacks, sweets, meals and other edible foods subject to the conditions as specified under the provisions of the P.F.A. Act, 1954 at Main S.E. Railway Hospital, Kharagpur, Dist. Midnapore from lst January, 1988 to 3/12/1988 (vide Annexure "A" to the writ petition). The petitioner renewed the licence from time to time and deposited requisite fee etc. and carried on his work without any complaint from any quarter. According to the Railway Authority, the appellant-petitioner was given a temporary licence for occupation for two years from 17-1-1988 to 16-1-1990 a portion of the building of Main S.E. Railway Hospital, Kharagpur belonging to the Central Government through South Eastern Railway, Kharagpur. During the licence period the appellant-petitioner violated some terms and conditions of the said licence agreement on certain grounds. The decision not to extend the period of licence was communicated to the petitioner by a letter dated 17-1-1990 but the petitioner refused to take the said letter and thereafter was given a show cause notice under Section 4(2) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised occupants) Act, 1971 (for short the Act). The copy of the said notice has been marked Annexure "F" to the writ petition. The appellant-writ petitioner submitted a reply to the show cause notice denying the allegation. There were several dates for hearing the matter before the Estate officer. It appears from the impugned order that only on 15-5-1991, the petitioner with the lawyer was present and on other occasions, the learned advocate of the petitioner was not present. Then the Estate officer passed the order under Section 5(1) of the Act directing the petitioner to vacate the said premises within 15 days of the date of publication of the order.

(3.) An appeal was taken in the Court of the learned District Judge, Midnapore. The learned Additional District Judge, 4th Court, Midnapore disposed of the appeal, affirming the order of the Estate officer. Against that order the appellant has come before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, mainly, on the ground, inter alia, that there was a flagrant error of procedure and that there was violation of principle of natural justice. The application is hotly contested.