Back
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. SATHASIVAM, RANJAN GOGOI, JJ.
S.D. Bandi .... Appellant(s)
Versus
Divisional Traffic Officer, KSRTC & Ors. .... Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4064 OF 2004
Decided on : July 05, 2013.
Held: As per the details furnished by learned amicus curiae and various comments made by Union of India as well as some of the States and the Union Territories, it cannot be said that at present there is no machinery to check eviction of unauthorized occupants as well as recovery of arrears of rent including penal charges. However, it is not in dispute that in spite of existing provisions/rules, directions etc., the fact remains same and the persons from all the three branches either by their influence or by lengthy procedure as provided in the Act, continue to stay in the government accommodation by paying paltry amount either by way of rent or penalty. In these circumstances, we are of the view that in addition to the statutory provisions, there is need to frame guidelines for the benefit of both Union of India/States and Union Territories for better utilization of their premises.
The following suggestions would precisely address the grievances of the Centre and the State governments in regard to the unauthorized occupants:
Suggestions:
(i) As a precautionary measure, a notice should be sent to the allottee/officer/employee concerned under Section 4 of the PP Act three months prior to the date of his/her retirement giving advance intimation to vacate the premises.
(ii) The Department concerned from where the government servant is going to retire must be made liable for fulfilling the above-mentioned formalities as well as follow up actions so that rest of the provisions of the Act can be effectively utilized.
(iii) The principles of natural justice have to be followed while serving the notice.
(iv) After following the procedure as mentioned in SR 317-B-11(2) and 317-B-22 proviso 1 and 2, within 7 working days, send a show cause notice to the person concerned in view of the advance intimation sent three months before the retirement.
(v) Date of appearance before the Estate Officer or for personal hearing as mentioned in the Act after show cause notice should not be more than 7 working days.
(vi) Order of eviction should be passed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 15 days.
(vii) If, as per the Estate Officer, the occupant's case is genuine in terms of Section 5 of the Act then, in the first instance, an extension of not more than 30 days should be granted.
(viii) The responsibility for issuance of the genuineness certificate should be on the Department concerned from where the government servant has retired for the occupation of the premises for next 15 days and further. Giving additional responsibility to the department concerned will help in speedy vacation of such premises. Baseless or frivolous applications for extensions have to be rejected within seven days.
(ix) If as per the Estate Officer the occupant's case is not genuine, not more than 15 days' time should be granted and thereafter, reasonable force as per Section 5(2) of the Act may be used.
(x) There must be a time frame within how much time the Estate Officer has to decide about the quantum of rent to be paid.
(xi) The same procedure must be followed for damages.
(xii) The arrears/damages should be collected as arrears of land revenue as mentioned in Section 14 of the Act.
(xiii) There must be a provision for compound interest, instead of simple interest as per Section 7.
(xiv) To make it more stringent, there must be some provision for stoppage or reduction in the monthly pension till the date of vacation of the premises.
(xv) Under Section 9 (2), an appeal shall lie from an order of eviction and of rent/damages within 12 days from the day of publication or on which the order is communicated respectively.
(xvi) Under Section 9(4), disposal of the appeals must be preferably within a period of 30 days in order to eliminate unnecessary delay in disposal of such cases.
(xvii) The liberty of the appellate officer to condone the delay in filing the appeal under Section 9 of the Act should be exercised very reluctantly and it should be an exceptional practice and not a general rule.
(xviii) Since allotment of government accommodation is a privilege given to the Ministers and Members of Parliament, the matter of unauthorized retention should be intimated to the Speaker/Chairman of the House and action should be initiated by the House Committee for the breach of the privileges which a Member/Minister enjoys and the appropriate Committee should recommend to the Speaker/Chairman for taking appropriate action/eviction within a time bound period.
(xix) Judges of any forum shall vacate the official residence within a period of one month from the date of superannuation/retirement. However, after recording sufficient reason(s), the time may be extended by another one month.
(xx) Henceforth, no memorials should be allowed in future in any Government houses earmarked for residential accommodation.
It is unfortunate that the employees, officers, representatives of people and other high dignitaries continue to stay in the residential accommodation provided by the Government of India though they are no longer entitled to such accommodation. Many of such persons continue to occupy residential accommodation commensurate with the office(s) held by them earlier and which are beyond their present entitlement. The unauthorized occupants must recollect that rights and duties are correlative as the rights of one person entail the duties of another person similarly the duty of one person entails the rights of another person. Observing this, the unauthorized occupants must appreciate that their act of overstaying in the premise directly infringes the right of another. No law or directions can entirely control this act of disobedience but for the self realization among the unauthorized occupants. The matter is disposed of with the above terms and no order is required in I.As for impleadment and intervention.
Result: Matter disposed of with directions.
JUDGMENT
P.Sathasivam, J.
1) The instant case relates to the occupation of government accommodation by members of all the three branches of the State, viz., the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary beyond the period for which the same were allotted. The occupation of such government houses/quarters beyond the period prescribed causes difficulty in accommodating other persons waiting for allotment and, therefore, the Government is at a loss on the one hand in not being able to accommodate those persons who are in need and on the other is unable to effectively deal with the persons who continue to occupy unauthorisedly beyond the period prescribed.
2) Despite the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (in short ‘the Act’), it is seen that it has not been effective enough in dealing with the eviction inasmuch as the competent Authority, i.e., Estate Officer has to first initiate proceedings and pass orders after hearing the parties and thereafter, one statutory appeal lies to the District Judge under Section 9 of the Act. After disposal of the appeal, people resort to writ proceedings thereby enjoying the scarce government accommodation. There are cases where the occupants are so affluent that they are willing to pay the penal/market rent and continue to occupy government quarters especially in metropolitan cities where such government quarters are a luxury situated in several acres of land within the heart of the city.
3) Before proceeding further, it is useful to find out the circumstances and basis on which the matter was agitated.
One Shri S.D. Bandi filed the present appeal against the order dated 25.03.2004 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in W.A. No. 324 of 2002 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court while disposing of the appeal filed by the respondents herein granted time to the appellant herein to vacate the government quarter by 30.04.2004. The appellant was working as a Driver in the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (for short “the Corporation”), Mysore Division at Mysore. By order dated 31.05.1992, he was transferred to the Mangalore Division and for joining the place of duty, he was relieved from the duty of Mysore Division on 12.06.1997. Challenging the order of transfer, the appellant herein filed Reference No.21 of 1997 before the Industrial Tribunal, Mysore. At the same time, he did join the place of posting at Mangalore but did not vacate the quarter. On 19.07.1999, the competent officer under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 passed an order of eviction against the appellant in KPP No.3 of 1998. Against the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the District Judge, which was dismissed and the order of eviction was confirmed. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred a writ petition being W.P. No. 41762 of 2001 before the High Court of Karnataka which was allowed on 10.12.2001. In the meantime, on 03.07.2000, the Industrial Tribunal set aside the order of transfer and ordered the appellant to be restored to his original place of work at Mysore. Against the said order, the Corporation filed a petition being Writ Petition No. 3249 of 2001 in which rule nisi was issued and the award of the Industrial Tribunal was stayed. Thereafter, the Corporation preferred Writ Appeal being No. 324 of 2002 against the order dated 10.12.2001 in W.P. No. 41762 of 2001 which was allowed by impugned order dated 25.03.2004 and the appellant herein was also directed to vacate the quarter by 30.04.2004. Challenging the said order, the present appeal has been preferred before this Court by way of special leave.
4) By order dated 13.07.2004, after hearing all the parties, this Court dismissed the appeal and directed the competent officer of the Corporation, Mysore Division to at once evict the appellant from the quarter.
5) Pursuant to the said order, this Court, taking note of the fact that in government quarters, unau
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
