CANTONMENT BOARD Vs. MUKESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar has granted an interim order in favour of the respondent Mukesh for the reason that the validity of the termination of the allotment of a shop in the Cantonment is yet to be gone into in appeal. The case arises out of proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 preferred by the Cantonment Board against the respondent. The respondent secured a shop on licence by way of auction finalized by the Cantonment Committee in which his close relative participated. The relative was an elected member of the Cantonment Board. The proceedings of the Committee resulted in the award of licence to the respondent to occupy and do business from the shop belonging to the Cantonment Board. The relationship between the elected member and the respondent was not disclosed before the meeting. Hence, the allotment was cancelled. A fresh auction was ordered by the Cantonment Board. The cancellation of allotment was challenged by the respondent in a civil suit. The Cantonment Board moved an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 praying that the suit is barred in the presence of an arbitration clause and that any dispute or difference between the parties is triable before the Arbitral Tribunal. The application was allowed. However, respondent Mukesh did not approach the named arbitrator for resolution of the dispute. To the contrary, he contested the proceedings under the Public Premises Act which was disallowed by the Estate Officer on March 10, 2014 (P -2) aggrieved against which an appeal was preferred by Mukesh which is pending before the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar. In appeal the impugned interim order has been passed against which the Cantonment Board has preferred this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the Board suggests that instead of examining the case on merits against the interlocutory order passed in appeal issuing temporary injunction in favour of the respondent the better course would be to direct the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar to decide the main appeal in a time bound manner. In the circumstances, issuing notice of motion to the respondent would led to unnecessary delay only to hear the respondent. In order to balance out interest and equity between the Board and the respondent it appears appropriate and justified that this Court requires the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar to hear and finally dispose of the appeal on merits within a period of two months from the date when the certified copy of this order is placed on the judicial file. Since it is an appeal and the record is already available in the proceedings under the Public Premises Act, only arguments on the appeal are to be heard on facts and law and the preliminary objection of the Board as to bar of jurisdiction of the civil court in the face of an arbitration clause.

(3.) DISPOSED of with the direction to the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar to decide the main appeal within two months from the date when the certified copy of this order is placed on the judicial file.