SUNABEDA MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.P. (C) No. 16632 of 2009 has been filed by the Sunabeda Merchants Association and two others questioning the legality of authority of opposite parties 2 to 4 in taking action for eviction of its members from the quarters allotted to them and W.P. (C) No. 16546 of 2009 has been filed by Ramesh Ch. Padhi in his individual capacity raising the very same question. Therefore, these two writ applications were heard together and are disposed of in this common judgment.

(2.) The members of the Association, who had filed writ application individually challenging the order passed by the Estate Officer have been dealt with and disposed of separately since the question involved in those cases was different than these two writ applications. The case of the Association and the petitioner in the connected writ application is that in the year 1967 when the process of construction of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. : Township was going on, opposite party No. 2 in W.P. (C) No. 16632 of 2009 made an offer to persons, who were interested for opening of shops and were also promised that they would be allotted with quarters for their occupation in the Township as no private land is available in the Township to accommodate any one except the Officers of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (in short 'HAL'). Accordingly, the members of the Association including the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 16546 of 2009 submitted their applications and they were allotted with not only the shop rooms but also quarters to accommodate their respective families. The members of the Association came into business within the Township of HAL in different phases and have been running their shops for a considerable length of time. HAL was collecting rent for the quarters apart from water and electricity charges and security deposit had also collected from the members of the Association in respect of each allotment of quarters. At the time of allotment of quarters, a condition was imposed to the effect that if at any time for any reason the allottees are allotted alternative accommodation, they will shift to the new accommodation that may be provided to them. It was also stipulated that when the accommodation is no longer required by the allottees due to any reason or the allotment is cancelled by HAL for any breach of rules, the allottees are responsible for handing over possession of the same to the Town Administration Department in terms of the allotment order. According to the Association, the terms and conditions in respect of allotment of quarter clearly establish that such allotment shall not be cancelled unless alternative accommodation is made available to these members and cancellation of allotment of quarters can only be made, if any allottee violates the conditions provided in the allotment letter. As it appears from the averments made in both the writ applications, by now nearabout 145 such private persons have been allotted with shop rooms and quarters and they are continuing to occupy both. The license granted in favour of the allottees was renewed from time to time but there has been no renewal from the year 2003. When the matter stood thus, opposite party No. 2 by letter dated 10th October, 2003 informed the members of the Association that they should hand over possession of the quarters as and when required by the management. According to the Association and its members, the terms and conditions in the said letter being contrary to what had been promised, objections were raised. The Association and its members requested the said opposite party No. 2 for renewal of the license without any further terms and conditions but the said relief was not granted. In order to resolve the dispute, on 3-6-2006 a joint meeting was convened in the office of the General Manager (P & A) which was attended by three Senior Officers of HAL and the members of the Association. After due deliberation, the Chief Manager (P & A) representing the management of HAL declared that even if any clause is incorporated for eviction of allottees from the quarters, there need not be any apprehension in the mind of the allottees that they would be evicted. It was also stated in the said meeting that till the date no allottee had been given notice to vacate the quarters and probably it may not happen so. Howeyer, the management assured that the persons, who are holding quarters are not likely to be asked to vacate, but the clause should be incorporated in the agreement. In spite of such assurance, the members of the Association objected to inclusion of such clause and ultimately the meeting brought about no result. Almost two and half years thereafter suddenly notices were given to all the allottees on 7-1-2009 to deliver vacant possession of the quarters allotted in their favour and it was also stipulated in the notice that from the date of receipt of the notice, amenities like electricity and water shall be disconnected from the quarters besides initiation of proceedings for eviction. Challenging the said notice, the Association moved this Court in W.P. (C) No. 1112 of 2009 and the said writ application was disposed of on 30-1-2009 with an observation that the members of the Association shall not be evicted without following the due process of law. Thereafter, different proceedings were initiated against all the members of the Association for eviction by the Estate Officer of HAL under the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 and the notices were sent to individual members of the Association. The members of the Association appeared before the Estate Officer and filed applications under Order 14, Rule 2, C.P.C. on the ground that they being lessees and not licensees, such proceedings under the Act are not maintainable and, therefore, a preliminary issue be framed with regard to maintainability of the proceedings. Such petition filed by all the allottees before the Estate Officer having been rejected, the other batch of cases which were heard along with these two cases were filed. This is the reason for which these two writ applications have been dealt with separately. In these two writ applications the following questions are raised for adjudication:

(3.) On these grounds Shri Ashok Mohanty, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 16546 of 2009 and Shri Budhebadev Routray, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Association in W.P. (C) No. 16632 of 2009 submitted that Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been grossly violated by HAL.