CALCUTTA HIGH COURT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.
Marine Engineering And Trade Services - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India And Others - Respondent
WPA/225/2022 & IA No. CAN/1/2022
Decided On : 21-07-2022
Public Premises - Regularization of Counsel Appointment - The court directed the respondent authorities to regularize the appointment of counsel to represent the respondents in the matter. The court refrained from deciding on the merits of the case and relegate the matter for adjudication before the Estate Officer, emphasizing the importance of not usurping the jurisdiction of the Estate Officer in matters involving mixed elements of fact and law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the notice issued under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, contending that the notice was not tenable in the eye of law on several grounds.
Finding of the Court:
The court refrained from deciding on the merits of the case and directed the matter to be adjudicated before the Estate Officer, emphasizing the importance of not usurping the jurisdiction of the Estate Officer in matters involving mixed elements of fact and law.
Issues: Validity of the notice issued under Section 4 of the Public Premises Act, jurisdiction of the Estate Officer, and the interpretation of an order of a Division Bench in a connected matter.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of not usurping the jurisdiction of the Estate Officer in matters involving mixed elements of fact and law and directed the matter to be adjudicated before the Estate Officer.
Final Decision: The matter was disposed of by granting leave to the parties to agitate all points contended in the present writ petition in the proceeding pending before the Estate Officer, including the objection as to jurisdiction of the Estate Officer sought to be ventilated by the petitioner. The time for filing written objection before the Estate Officer was extended, and the Estate Officer was directed to decide the main proceeding pending before it as expeditiously as possible.
JUDGMENT
1. In view of the urgency, the matter is taken up for hearing today. The respondent authorities are directed to regularize the appointment of Mr. D.C.Kabir, Mr. S.Ajith Prasad, Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty and Mr. Ramendu Agarwal, as counsel to represent the respondents in the present matter.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the notice issued under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 was not tenable in the eye of law on several grounds. It is contended that not only did the author of the said notice have no jurisdiction as Estate Officer on the relevant date to issue the same, the petitioner's occupation was not unauthorized on the relevant date. Learned counsel places reliance on several documents annexed to the writ petition.
3. Such contentions are squarely controverted by learned counsel appearing for the respondent authorities and it is submitted that sharp practices are going on in respect of this matter.
4. It is further contended that by misinterpreting an order of a Division Bench passed in a connected matter, the petitioner has claimed the right of occupacy in respect of the shed inquestion whereas the said order merely indicated that the petitioner would be entitled to act in terms of such permit upto the date of expiry of the tenure of the same.
5. It is further contended, in elaborate details, that the invoices raised in respect of dues from the petitioner, which have been contended to be time barred by the petitioner, were only raised due to the request by the petitioner to enable it to clear off its dues. However, it is contended that there arises no question of the impugned notice being vitiated in any manner whatsoever.
6. I do not intend to go into the merits and/or decide the same in respect of the present challenge in view of the nature of the order which I propose to pass in the matter.
7. Since the dispute involved in the writ petition has mixed elements of fact and law, it would only be appropriate if this Court does not, in its exercise under Article 226 of the Constitution, usurp the jurisdiction of the Estate Officer designated by the 1971 Act to decide on such issue. Moreover, in the event any order is passed on merits in the writ petition in respect of the challenge taken out therein, there would always be a chance of either of the parties losing two forums and/or the Estate Officer being prejudiced with the observations made by this Court on merits, if so made, in the further stages of the proceeding.
8. In view of the above reasons, I deem it prudent to relegate the matter for adjudication before the Estate Officer.
9. Hence, WPA/225/2022 is disposed of by granting leave to the parties to agitate all points contended in the present writ petition in the proceeding pending before the Estate Officer, including the objection as to jurisdiction of the Estate Officer sought to be ventilated by the petitioner.
10. If such points are raised before the Estate Officer, the latter will decide the same on merits upon giving an adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties in accordance with law without being influenced in any manner by any of the observations made herein.
11. However, since the petitioner has not yet filed its written objection before the Estate Officer in the main proceeding, the time for filing such written objection is extended till July 29, 2022. It is made clear that the time frame as stipulated above is peremptory and, in the event the petitioner fails, for any reason whatsoever, to file its objection in the main proceeding before the Estate Officer on or before July 29,2022, it will be open to the Estate Officer to proceed without any further opportunity being given to the petitioner to file written objection and to decide the matter on merits.
12. In the event such objection is filed on or before July 29, 2022, the Estate Officer shall decide the main proceeding pending before it as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a
The importance of not usurping the jurisdiction of the Estate Officer in matters involving mixed elements of fact and law.
The jurisdiction of the Estate Officer under Section 4 of the Public Premises Act does not require the provision of reasons, and the pendency of a civil suit does not affect the authority's jurisdict....
Judicial review of administrative actions is limited and should not preempt available legal remedies.
: An administrative order passed without jurisdiction is amenable to a writ petition.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.