NEW BALAJI ELECTRONICS Vs. RIICO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Estate Officer, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited, Udyog Bhawan, New Power House Road, Jodhpur has issued a notice under the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 ('the Act of 1964') on 12.04.2007 alleging the petitioner to be in unauthorised occupation of plot No. SR-62 situated at Industrial Area, Sangria Ist Phase, Jodhpur measuring 72 sq.m.; and has called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why order of eviction be not passed. The said notice dated 12.04.2007 (Annex.5) is sought to be questioned by the petitioner in this writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner has averred that the respondent-RIICO Ltd. had executed a lease deed (Annex.2) in favour of one Smt. Vimla Rathi in relation to the said plot No. SR-62 that was registered on 01.11.2004; and that the petitioner had purchased the rights in the said property under a registered sale deed dated 09.11.2004 (Annex.3). According to the petitioner, the sale deed was duly recognised by the respondent-RIICO Ltd. under its communication dated 11.03.2005 (Annex.4) and the plot in question was transferred in favour of the petitioner; and the petitioner has started its business on the plot in question and has fulfilled all the conditions of lease deed and transfer order. It is alleged that despite the petitioner having been recognised as lessee by the RIICO Ltd. and, thus, being not in unauthorised occupation, the Estate Officer has proceeded to issue the impugned notice on 12.04.2007 that remains wholly without jurisdiction. It is contended that lease deed exists in favour of the petitioner that has never been cancelled and, therefore, the Estate Officer has no jurisdiction to issue any notice to the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decisions of this Court in Ratan Lal v. State of Rajasthan,1998 WLC(Raj) 747; Suzuki Processors v. The Commissioner, Central Excise Jaipur, 2000 4 WLC(Raj) 286; and Man Mal Sharma and Ors. v. Bikaner Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar,1999 2 WLC(Raj) 195.

(3.) On the factual matrix as suggested, it remains inexplicable as to what has prevented the petitioner from responding to the notice Annex.5 and showing cause against the proposed order of eviction By the impugned notice Annex.5, the petitioner was called upon to show cause on 04.05.2007; and the petitioner has filed this writ petition only on 08.05.2007 i.e., after the date fixed in the notice for showing cause had passed-by. The writ jurisdiction of this Court is ordinarily not exercised in relation to show cause notice where the final outcome of notice is available to be adjudicated by the authority concerned; and in the present case, looking to the nature of proceedings under the Act of 1964 and looking to the nature of claim made by the petitioner there appears no plausible reason for which the petitioner could not have replied to the show cause notice and pointed out an existing legal right, if any, to remain in possession of the disputed property. The present one does not appear fit a case to entertain the writ petition.