A law that grants unguided and absolute discretion to an authority to evict unauthorized occupants of public premises, thereby enabling differential treatment for persons situated in similar circumstances, violates the right to equality guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution.

( 1 ) THIS application and a number of applications have been heard together at) the involve a common question of law, namely the vires of a Central Act, namely the Public Premises (Eviction. of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. 1958 (32 of 1958) (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act" ). In this particular case, the facts are as follows. The petitioner holds a plot if land at Garden Reach, belonging to the South Eastern Railway. This plot was used by him for stacking and unloading coal, char-coal, fire wood etc. On 01 about the 19th November 1962 the respondent No. 2, the Deputy Ditector, Rail Movements. Railway Board, Calcutta, for and on behalf of the President of India served a notice to suit on the petitioner asking him to quit and vacate plot No 27 at Garden Reach occupied by the petitioner an area measuring more or less 1250 square feet, and deliver up varaij possession thereof by the 31st day of December 1962. The petitioner, instead of complying with the said notice, made an application before this Court on the 10th December. 1962 under Article 226 of the Constitution and a Rule Nisi was issued The said Rule came up for final hearing on the 10th September 1963 but was discharged on the ground that no steps had vet been taken under the said Act or under any other provision of law. On or about the 11th October 1963 the respondent No. 3 the Estate Officer, South Eastern Railway Garden Reach purporting to act under the said Act issued notice to show cause upon the petitioner under Subsection (1) of Section 4 thereof. A copy of the notice is set out below: whereas 1, the undersigned, am of opinion, on the grounds specified below, that you are in unauthorised occupation of the public premises mentioned in the schedule below and that you should be evicted from the premises. GROUNDS. After termination of the temporary license granted to you in respect of plot No. 27 at Firewood siding, Garden Reach. Calcutta-43 your occupation of the sain plot has become unauthorised with effect from 1-1-63 Now, therefore, in pursuance of subsection (1) of Section 4 of the Act, J hereby call upon you to show cause on or before the 2-11-63 at 11 a. m. why such an order of eviction should not be made "

( 2 ) THEREUPON the petitioner made an application to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and a Rule was issued on 20th November, 1963 upon the opposite parties to show cause why a Writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued directing the opposite parties to cancel and/or forbear from giving effect to the notice complained of in the petition and for other reliefs. The main ground taken in the petition is that the provisions of the said Act are ultra vire: the Constitution of India It may be mentioned here that a number of applications had been made involving this very point of law and they were all referred for being heard by a larger Bench. One of these matters - Standard Literature Co Ltd v Union of India, and a number of other matters were disposed of by us by our judgment dated fith April 1967 This decision has been reported in (SB) and the report shows, the particulars of the matters which were disposed of by our common judgment In the said application the following constitutional grounds were urged before us:-" (1) Under section 4 (1) of the said Act the condition precedent is that the Estate Officer should be of the opinion that persons are in unauthorised occupation of any public premises and that they should be evicted. It was argued that the prescribed a ualifications for being appointed as an estate officer under clause (at of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the said Act, does not remedy the objections that were put forward against the 1950 Act A 'gazetted Officer' may even be s humble person like the personal assistant of a minister To make property rights dependent on the subjective satisfaction of such a person was an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental rights of a citizen to hold property un