The provisions of section 138 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, are applicable to premises belonging to the Railway administration, even though they may be public premises.

Headnote:
INDIAN RAILWAYS ACT, 1890 - SECTION 138 - PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1971 - ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - RAILWAY SERVANT - RETIREMENT - EVICTION FROM RAILWAY QUARTERS - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 138 - INTERPRETATION OF "DISCHARGE" - APPLICABILITY OF PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1971 - AVAILABILITY OF TWO PROCEDURES - VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 - SUBSTITUTION OF COMPLAINANT - CIRCULAR ISSUED BY RAILWAY BOARD DATED JUNE 25, 1966 - ALLOTMENT OF RAILWAY QUARTERS TO DEPENDANTS OF RAILWAY SERVANT.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a retired Railway servant, was served with a notice to vacate the Railway quarter allotted to him during his service. He failed to vacate the quarter, and the Railway administration filed an application under section 138 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, for eviction of the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 36th Court, Bombay Central, Bombay, on the ground that the application under section 138 was misconceived, bad in law, and not maintainable. He contended that the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, was applicable to the premises in question and that the Railway administration had to follow the procedure laid down in that Act for evicting unauthorised occupants.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the provisions of section 138 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, were applicable to the premises in question and that the Railway administration was entitled to invoke the provisions of the said section for eviction of the petitioner. The Court further held that the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, was not applicable to the premises in question as they were not public premises within the meaning of the said Act. The Court also held that the availability of two procedures for eviction of unauthorised occupants did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India as the procedures were not so harsh or unconscionable as to justify the conclusion that a discrimination would result if resort to them is had in some cases and to the ordinary procedure of civil courts in others.
Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of section 138 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, were applicable to the premises in question? 2. Whether the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, was applicable to the premises in question? 3. Whether the availability of two procedures for eviction of unauthorised occupants violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The word "discharge" occurring in section 138 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, is not confined to dismissal by way of punishment or involuntary discharge, but also includes retirement after reaching the age of superannuation. 2. The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, is not applicable to premises belonging to the Railway administration, even though they may be public premises. 3. The availability of two procedures for eviction of unauthorised occupants does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India as the procedures are not so harsh or unconscionable as to justify the conclusion that a discrimination would result if resort to them is had in some cases and to the ordinary procedure of civil courts in others.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed and the Rule was discharged.

JUDGMENT - R.S. BHONSALE, J.:---Two interesting points of considerable importance, which may have important bearing on the relationship of the Railway administration with their retired employees arise for determination in this petition filed by one Arjun Babloo Tukaral, an ex-employee of the Western Railway, Bombay. In order to appreciate these points, necessary undisputed facts which lie within a narrow compass may be stated as follows :

The petitioner Shri Arjun Babloo Tukaral, who was employed as a Gang Man under the Western Railway at Parel and was allotted a Railway quarter being Quarter No. 171, Room No. 14, Bandra (West), Bombay-400 050, it is alleged, without payment of any rent on account of his employment. Admittedly the petitioner retired from the service of the Western Railway on December 31, 1977. Even after his retirement from service the petitioner did not vacate the said quarter in spite of the notice being served upon him in January 17, 1978 calling upon him to hand over the vacant possession of the said quarter. As the petitioner did not vacate the said quarter, respondent No. 1 who is Personnel Inspector, (Settlement), Western Railway, Bombay Central, filed an application under section 138 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay Central, Bombay for eviction of the petitioner from the said quarter belonging to the Western Railway. In the said application these facts were briefly stated and it was prayed that any competent police officer be ordered with proper assistance to enter upon the said quarter and remove any person found therein and take possession thereof and to deliver the same to the Railway administration or to a person appointed by the Railway administration in that behalf. The application was made on behalf of the Railway administration and signed by respondent No. 1 in his capacity as Personnel Inspector (Settlement), Western Railway, Bombay Central, Bombay and was dated September 14, 1978. Upon this application being presented to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 36th Court, Bombay Central, Bombay, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate issued the following notice to the petitioner Arjun Babloo to show cause why a warrant of eviction should not be issued against him. The notice issued by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate is dated September 14, 1978. The said notice of the learned Magistrate reads as follows:

"To,

Shri Arjun Babloo

Whereas on 14-9-1978 an application has been made by Shri G.V. Javalkar Bombay to this Court that you were employed in Western Railway as Gangman at Parel and you are occupying Quarter No. 171 2/M. 14 at Bandra, Bombay and you have been retired from the services of the Western Railway since 31-12-1977 and that you have not vacated the said quarter though you were served with a notice on 17-2-1978 to do so.

You are hereby required to attend this Court on 25-9-1978 to show cause why a warrant of eviction should not be issued against you herein fall not.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court Dated this 14th day of September 1978.

Sd/-

For Metropolitan Magistrate,

36th Court, Bombay Central, Bombay".

2. The petitioner in response to the said show cause notice as to why a warrant of eviction should not be issued against him filed his written say on October 16, 1978 in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 36th Court, Bombay Central, Bombay. The main contentions which were raised in the said written say were that the application made by respondent No. 1 under the provisions of section 138 of the Indian Railways Act was misconceived, bad in law and was not maintainable. It was further stated that the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 is an Act to provide for the eviction of unauthorised occupants from the Public Premises and for certain incidental matters related thereto. After quoting the definition of unauthorised occupants, it was contended that the premises referred to in the notice in questi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1980 Supreme(Bom) 135

The provisions of section 138 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, are applicable to premises belonging to the Railway administration, even though they may be public premises.

Cases Referred (1)