SUBHADRA SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S. Mishra-1, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ashok Mohanty, learned standing counsel for the Central Government.

(2.) Petitioner No. 1 is a postal employee. She was staying in a quarter allotted to her father who was also a postal employee. She is continuing in the said quarter for which rent and other charges are paid by her. Despite it, a proceeding under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act was initiated against her to end in her eviction order. Against this, petitioner has preferred an appeal and obtained an order of interim stay. On a date to which the appeal was posted, the senior Standing Counsel of the Central Government appeared and filed objection to the interim stay granted, and moved to vacate the interim order. On copy being served on learned Counsel for petitioner, matter was heard that day. It was brought to notice of the appellate authority that pursuant to order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, another quarter has been allotted to her. On such finding order of interim stay having been vacated, this writ application has been filed to quash the order.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in this case principle of natural justice has been violated inasmuch as the order of interim stay was vacated on a date to which appeal was not posted. When stay was vacated on the ground that another quarter has been allotted, opportunity ought to have been given to learned counsel for the petitioner to get the detailed instruction. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, impugned order vacating the interim stay granted does not contain any fact which according to the appellate authority required urgent hearing without waiting for the date to which the appeal was posted. Mr. Ashok Mohanty, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submitted that ex parte order of stay without hearing the respondent in the appeal was granted. Accordingly, when it was brought to notice of the appellate authority that another quarter has been allotted, rightly the order of stay was vacated since petitioner cannot get benefit of two quarters whose number is much less than the employees waiting to be allotted with the same. Added to it. Mr. Mohanty submitted that natural justice has not been violated since learned counsel for the petitioner was heard by the appellate authority.