UNION OF INDIA Vs. GOPESH CHANDRA DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question paused for consideration in this writ petition has arisen in consequence of failure of the State to effectively separate the Executive from Judiciary as envisaged by the Directive Principles of State Policy contained in Article 50 of the Indian Constitution.

(2.) By making this application under Article 226 and 227 ofthe Constitution . of India, the petitioner No 1, namely. Union of India has approached this Court terming as illegal and without jurisdiction the exercise of powers of a District Judge by Additional Deputy Commissioner (herein after referred to as the ADC), Tura, under section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1980 (herein after referred to as the said Act),

(3.) In a narrow compass, facts giving rise to this writ petition may be put as follows: Alleging that the building erected by the respondenton the land, in dispute, actually belongs to the petitioner No. 1, the Estate Officer, appointed under section 3 ofthe said Act, issued a notice under sub-section (1) (i) and clause (b) (i) of sub-section (2) of section 4 ofthe said Act, contained in Memo No. E-21/90(3)-34, dated 10.1.2001, directing the sole respondent to appear on 12.2.2001, at Shillong, before the Estate Officer, in person or through duly authorized representative, to answer all material questions along with the evidence. The respondent, on receipt of the notice, submitted his show cause. The Estate Officer, on considering the same, did not find the stand of the respondent tenable in law and, hence, issued anotice under section 5A (2) of the said Ad directing the respondent to vacate, on or before 11.6.2001, the said allegedly encroached portion of the land and to remove the structure constructed thereon by him. The respondent, however, preferred on 8.6.2001, an appeal under section 9 of the said Act in the Court of learned Deputy Commissioner, West Garo hills, Tura, impugning the notice, dated 11.5.2001, aforementioned. This appeal was registered as Civil Appeal No.1 of 2001 and was made over to learned ADC, Tura, who in turn, vide order passed on 8.6. 2001, entertained the appeal and stayed operation of the notice aforementioned. It is this order, which stands impugned in this writ petition on the ground that the learned ADC, Tura, lacked jurisdiction to entertain the said appeal.