KUMAR NAYAK Vs. ESTATE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aforesaid two writ petitions are by petitioner Kumar Nayak against the opposite parties and involves common question of law and facts and therefore, with the agreement and consent of the learned counsel for the parties are heard and disposed of by this common order.

(2.) In O. J. C. No. 92 of 1997, the petitioner assails the order rejecting his application for impletion as a party in proceedings under Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter called 'the Act') in respect of Stall No. 183 in Ispat Market, Rourkela. In O.J.C. No. 7779 of 1997, the petitioner challenges the action of the opposite parties, in particular opp. party No. 5, on the alleged locking up of the said shop, Stall No. 183 thereby paralysing his business establishment.

(3.) The petitioner claims that he was the occupant of stall No. 183 in Ispat Market. Rourkela since last eight years and was carrying on his business without any interference from any corner. On 11-11-96, the petitioner got a notice under Section 5(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 to vacate the said shop within 15 days in terms of the order dated 30-10-95 in R.P. Case No. 3036 of 1992. It is alleged that the order dated 30-10-96 was passed behind the back of the petitioner and on getting the notice, the petitioner filed J.C.No. 92 of 1997 and obtained interim stay of the proceedings on condition that he would deposit a sum of Rs. 5000/- with the Registrar of this Court within seven days. The petitioner had also deposited the amount. It is alleged that when the petitioner was in peaceful possession and occupation of the shop No. 183, on 8-4-97 Sri P.C. Bhol, A.S.I. of Sector-19 Police Station, O.P. No. 5 came to the stall in absence of the petitioner and directed for locking of the stall. The petitioner on hearing the incident met opp. party No. 4 narrated the entire incident and delivered a copy of the order of this Court. But, however, opp. party No. 4 did not care for the order of this Court dated 9-1-97 in O.J.C. No. 92 of 1997 and did not allow him to open the shop. The petitioner also approached opp. party No. 3 and made a similar representation on 21-4-97 and since the stall is not being opened, the petitioner is suffering immense loss. It is therefore alleged that even though the eviction proceedings initiated in P.P. Case No. 3038 of 1992 has been stayed, by this Court by order dated 9-1-97. opp. party No. 5 has violated the said order in putting a lock in the stall. It is thus alleged that the action of opp. parties 3, 4 and 5 in not allowing opening of the shop, locked by opp. party No. 5 is illegal and contemptuous and they should be therefore proceeded against and the petitioner should be adequately compensated.