LAWS(ORI)-2006-11-7

SANYASI BARIK Vs. ORISSA SECRETARIAT LOW PAID

Decided On November 08, 2006
Sanyasi Barik Appellant
V/S
Orissa Secretariat Low Paid Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in the present writ petition prays for issue of a direction to the opp. parties 1 and 2 to redeliver possession of shop room No. 6 at Kharvelnagar, Bhubaneswar, to him, after holding that the forcible eviction of the petitioner from the said room by the opp. parties is without authority of law. The petitioner has stated that he was a bona fide tenant in respect of the aforementioned shop room under the opp. party No. 1 -Society by virtue of an agreement annexed to the writ petition as Annexure -1. While the petitioner was carrying on his business from the said shop room and was regularly paying rent to the opp. party No. 1, the opp. party No. 1 issued a notice on 1.2.2006 to the petitioner for vacating the said shop room (Annexure -4). It is stated by the petitioner that even after issuance of the said notice, the opp. party No. 1 has accepted rent from the petitioner on 4.3.2006. On 7.3.2006, the opp. parties 1 and 2 being accompanied with the Executive Magistrate -opp. party No. 4 and police personnel of Kharvelnagar Police Station came to the shop room of the petitioner, threw away the movable articles kept therein, forcibly evicted the petitioner and locked up for the said shop room. The petitioner thereafter claims to have not been able to enter into the said shop room and the same is under lock and key put by the opp. party No. 1. It is alleged that on enquiry, the petitioner came to know that by a letter of the Asst. Registrar, Cooperative Societies -opp. party No. 3 being letter No. 860 dated 24.2.2006, copy whereof was endorsed to the Superintendent of Police, Khurda at Bhubaneswar under memo No. 861 dated 24.2.2006, the said Asst. Registrar, Co -operative Societies intimated the Sub -Collector, Bhubaneswar that from the report of the Secretary of the opp. party No. 1 -Society dated 27.12.2006 addressed to him, he has learnt that a number of tenants have taken some rooms of the said Society on rent, for business purpose, on execution of due agreement with the Society. But the tenants have occupied their rooms unauthorisedly after expiry of the term of such agreements and were directed to vacate the said shop rooms by the said Society and have failed to do so. On account of the above, the business of the said Society is under threat and the Society is also not being able to repair the said rooms for which it has become indispensable to evict the tenants from the said shop rooms in presence of Magistrate and police personnel, in order to enable the Society to carry on its business. On the above intimation, the said Asst. Registrar requested the Sub -Collector in the said letter for favourable orders for deputing an Executive Magistrate and for providing police assistance for evicting the petitioner and others, similarly, placed like the petitioner, under the provisions of Section 33(3) of the Orissa Cooperative Societies Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'). The petitioner has also learnt that on receipt of the said letter, the Sub -Collector, Bhubaneswar rendered necessary police help and directed a Magistrate to be present during the process of eviction and pursuant to such assistance being provided, the petitioner was forcibly evicted as stated earlier.

(2.) MR . Sarangi, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the Sub -Collector, Bhubaneswar had no authority under law to render police help and direct the Executive Magistrate to be present for forcibly evicting the petitioner from the shop room which he was occupied by the petitioner as a bona fide tenant under the opp. party No. 1 -Society. He further submitted that such action is not contemplated under Section 33 of the Act. The other question raised by Mr. Sarangi is that the action of forcible eviction of the petitioner clearly shows violation of Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as the petitioner was earning his livelihood from the business which he was carrying on, from the said shop room and by the illegal action of the opp. parties, the petitioner has been deprived of his livelihood which, on the face of it, is unconstitutional.

(3.) SINCE the basic facts involved in the writ petition are not disputed, we heard the matter on merits. From the letter under Annexure -6, we find that on the basis of the letter written by the Asst. Registrar, Cooperative Societies -opp. party No. 3, to the Sub -Collector, Bhubaneswar, police assistance was directed to be given to the opp. party No. 1 -Society and an Executive Magistrate was also directed to remain present during the process of eviction of the petitioner from the shop room in question, apparently by force.