HARI SAHU Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) REPRESENTED BY DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL SUPERINTENDENT, SOUTHERN EASTERN RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER an agreement of licence dated 1 -6 -1967 between Hari Sahu (Petitioner) and the Union of India, the former was allowed to occupy the railway refreshment room at Puri as caterer from 1 -6 -1967 till 30 -11 -1967. A further extension was granted from 1 -12 -1967 till 31 -8 -1968. On 20th of January 1968, the Petitioner was intimated that the licence would not be renewed beyond 31st August 1968. On 3rd of March, 1968 the Petitioner filed O.J.C. No. 217 of 1968 for quashing the letter dated 20th of January 1968 intimating him that further extension would not be granted. After coming into force of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised Occupants) Amendment Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Ordinance) on 17.6.1968 the Petitioner, withdraw his writ application. An order was passed in that writ applications that the railway administration would consider the application of the Petitioner for renewal along with other applications. On 16 -8 -1968 the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Amendment Act, 1968 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Amending Act) came into force. On 17th of April 196) the Petitioner was intimated that the licence was given to Kangali Charan Biswal of Puri. On 29th of April 196 the Divisional Superintendent, Khurda Road, served a notice on the Petitioner directing him to vacate the refreshment room by 10 -5 -1969 failing which he would be evicted as unauthorised occupier. On 13th June 1969 the Estate Officer, South Eastern Railway, issued a notice under Section 4(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants), Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) as amended by the amending Act. The Petitioner was asked to show cause by 10 -7 -1969. On 21 -12 -1969 the order of eviction under Section 5(1) of the Act was passed. The Petitioner preferred Misc. Appeal No. 7 of 1970 in the Court of the District Judge, Puri, who stayed the operation of the order of eviction and has referred the case under Section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure for determination of the question as to whether Section 5 of the Act is the ultra vires Constitution even after the amending Act inserting Section 10E was passed.

(2.) IT was contended before the District judge, Puri; that Section 5 of the Act is void and is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution despite insertion of Section 10E by the amending Act.

(3.) IT would thus appear that Sections 5 and 7 are the substantive provisions for eviction of unauthorised occupants and the power to recover rent or damages in respect of public premises, and constitute the very core of the Act. The other sections are merely ancillary and cannot independently survive if Sections 5 and 7 are void being hit by Article 14.