Judgment

RAY, J.:- (For himself and Sikri, C.J.I, Shelat, Dua, palekar and Khanna, JJ.) These two appeals raised originally the constitutionality of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958. The challenge was on the ground that section 5 (1) of the 1958 Act violated Article 14 of the Constitution. Section 5 (1) of the 1958 Act conferred power on the Estate officer to make an order of eviction against persons who are in unauthorised occupation of public premises. The vice of section 5 (1) of the 1958 Act against Article 14 of the Constitution was this. The Government had two alternative remedies of eviction of persons in unauthorised occupation. One was to seek the remedy in a court of law by instituting a suit for eviction. The other was the remedy prescribed by the 1958 Act. The 1958 Act was attacked on the ground that there was the unguided discretion of the authorities to either of the remedies and to pick and choose some of them in occupation of public premises for the application of the drastic procedure under the 1958 Act.

2. The 1958 Act was amended in 1968. Section 10E was introduced into the 1958 Act. Section 10E created bar of jurisdiction of civil