Calcutta High Court Clarifies University Cannot Forcibly Evict Retired Employees from Quarters Without Due Process

In a significant clarification, the Calcutta High Court has held that a university cannot forcibly evict alleged unauthorized occupants from its quarters with the help of the police administration without following the due process of law. The ruling came in an appeal filed by retired employees of Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya, who had been served a notice to vacate their quarters or face forcible eviction.

Background and Appeal

The appeal was preferred by Tapan Panda and other retired employees of the university against an order of a Single Judge of the High Court, who had effectively declined to grant interim protection in their writ petition challenging a notice dated June 10, 2026. The notice asked the petitioners to vacate the university quarters and warned that failure to comply would lead the university authorities to “initiate appropriate proceedings for forcible eviction of the unauthorized occupants” with the help of the district police administration.

The Division Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Sandip Kumar De admitted the appeal, given the short question involved, and took it up for final hearing.

The Core Dispute and Arguments

The appellants argued that the language of the notice created a reasonable apprehension that the university authorities would resort to undue force in evicting them without waiting for the due process of law to take its own course. They further submitted that the university had already disconnected the electricity supply to the premises, causing tremendous hardship to them, as they were retired individuals.

On the other hand, the university authorities contended that the notice itself made it clear that the intention was to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. They also pointed out that the electricity supply had already been disconnected, rendering the prayer for interim protection against such disconnection infructuous.

Court's Analysis and Clarification

The court carefully perused the notice and found that it was essentially a precursor to an eviction proceeding, within the contemplation of Section 4(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, or akin thereto. The notice was designed to inform the alleged unauthorized occupants that steps for eviction would be taken.

However, the court observed that the use of the expressions “forcible” and “with the help of the district administration” alongside the intended initiation of proceedings were “misfits and somewhat contradictory.” Taking note of the submission made by the university authorities, on instructions, that the true intention was merely to initiate proceedings through due process, the Bench clarified the legal position.

“We deem it fit to clarify that nothing in the said notice dated June 10, 2026 would entitle the University authorities to forcibly evict the appellants, with the help of the district police administration or otherwise, without due process of law,” the court stated.

The Electricity Disconnection Issue

On the electricity disconnection, the court held that the appellants' specific prayer seeking protection against disconnection had become infructuous since the supply had already been cut. However, the court granted the appellants the liberty to approach the writ court for appropriate remedy in this regard, if otherwise so entitled in law. The court noted that the writ court could consider such an application and could, if necessary, impose conditions on the appellants.

Final Decision and Impact

The Division Bench found no apparent error in the Single Judge's order and disposed of the appeal without interfering with it. Nevertheless, the court's clarification serves as an important reminder that even when dealing with alleged unauthorized occupants of public premises, authorities must adhere to the due process of law. The ruling underscores that threatening language in a notice cannot substitute for proper legal proceedings.

“The appeal is disposed of without interfering with the impugned order, but in the light of the observations made above,” the bench concluded.

The court also directed the parties to act on the server copy of the order, without insisting on certified copies, for the purpose of compliance. No costs were awarded.

The judgment provides clarity to retired employees and other occupants of university quarters that they cannot be forcibly evicted without following the legal process, and that the authorities must act strictly in accordance with the Public Premises Act or similar statutes.