ADWAITA PRASAD BISWAL Vs. ROURKELA STEEL PLANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition challenging the orders of eviction passed by the competent authority vide Annexures-5, 5/1 and Annexure-6 in exercise of power under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.

(2.) Short background involving the case is that the petitioner was allotted with Quarters No.B/217, Sector-6, Rourkela. Pleading involving the writ petition discloses that the petitioner was allotted with the above quarters by Rourkela Steel Plant with his addressed as a representative of Newspaper "Pragatibadi" as clearly disclosed in Annexure-1. Prior to allotment of the quarter under annexure-1, petitioner was residing in Quarters No.C.198, which had been allotted in favour of the Editor 'Hindustan Samachar" Cooperative Society Ltd. Vide allotment order No.261 dated 22.3.1973. In the year 1982, petitioner was forcibly evicted there from on the premises of quarter being required for occupation of the Steel Plant Employees and subsequently the petitioner was allotted with Quarters vide annexure-1 involved herein. While the matter stood thus, on 27.1.1997 the petitioner was issued with a notice signed by one B.B.Nayak Manager (TS) NEA asking him to show cause as to why the allotment of quarters made in his favour vide Annexure-1 should not be cancelled since he was no more a representative of "Pragatibadi". Petitioner submitted a reply pursuant to the above notice on 10.1.1997 stating therein that he was continuing as a local representative of "Hindustan Samachar" and also continuing to pursue his avocation as a journalist. Thereafter another letter dated 29.3.1997 was issued by the Manager (TS) NEA communicating the petitioner about the decision for withdrawal of the allotment of quarters made in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner was called upon to handover the vacant possession within a period of fifteen days. Subsequently, another letter dated 13.4.2000 giving reference to the cancellation of allotment letter dated 29.3.1997 was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner therein was requested to vacate the quarters by 29.4.2000 and also to clear all outstanding dues vide Annexure-3. Petitioner made a representation and did not vacate the quarters. In the meanwhile, on 12.5.2000 the petitioner was issued with a notice under Section 4 (1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 signed by the Estate Officer involving P.P.Case No.8037 of 2000, a proceeding was initiated under the premises that petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of the public premises. Petitioner contested the proceeding on various grounds and ultimately the Estate Officer by his order dated 5.2.2003 while allowing the proceeding involved herein held that the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of the quarters and consequently passed an order of eviction of the petitioner under Section 5 (1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 finds place at Annexure-5 and Annexure-5/1. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 9 of the P.P. Act before the appellate authority registered as Civil Misc. Case No.5 of 2003. Finally the appellate authority vide his judgment dated 25.3.2004 dismissed the appeal thereby maintaining the orders passed by the Estate Officer, impugned herein.

(3.) Sri D.Panda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on reiteration of the plea taken by the petitioner before the SAIL authority by resisting the eviction process before the Estate Officer and also the stand taken before the appellate authority submitted that for the petitioner being provided with a Quarters for his individual capacity and there was no reason for asking the petitioner to vacate the quarters on the premises that he is no more continuing as the representative of Pragatibadi. Sri Panda, learned counsel also taking to the provision of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 contested the proceeding on the premises of non-compliance of requirement therein more particularly claimed that the proceedings becomes bad for there being no compliance of the provisions under Section 4 (2) (a) and (b) and also Section 4(4) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.