The Estate Officer's power to require payment of rent or damages in respect of public premises under Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) act, 1971.

JUDGMENT

1. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are as follows:

2. The Estate Officer, Kolkata Port Trust (KoPT) passed an eviction order against the petitioners on May 3, 2019 in respect of two plates of land with structure. an appeal preferred against the said order was dismissed for non-prosecution on February 18, 2020. The writ petitioners claim that, as per mutual settlement, the petitioner communicated its readiness to surrender the premises in favour of the KoPT on February 24, 2020; however, KoPT failed to take possession.

3. Ultimately, vide order dated September 21, 2020 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this court in W.P.a. 6927 of 2020, possession was handed over to the representatives of the KoPT on September 28, 2020. In the said order, it was recorded that the KoPT had claimed that it was entitled to huge arrear dues from the writ petitioners, which was denied by the latter. The learned Single Judge observed further that in the event the Port Trust authorities were entitled to any amount on account of the premises or the writ petitioners are entitled to any refund or adjustments, it would be open to the parties to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.

4. On November 11, 2020, the Estate Officer, KoPT issued a notice, on the basis of an Order No. 90 passed by the Estate Officer on the same date, to the petitioners calling upon the petitioners to show cause on or before December 4, 2020 at 11.30 aM why an order requiring the petitioners to pay damages together with interest should not be made. The petitioner filed an application before the Estate Officer in connection with the proceeding, bearing No. 672/D of 2005, seeking recall of the ex parte Order No. 90 dated November 11, 2020. The KoPT took several adjournments for filing its comments on the said application, but failed to file the same.

5. In the said proceeding, the KoPT filed on January 19, 2021 an application disclosing a fresh computation of outstanding compensation charges due from the petitioners. Vide Order No. 104 dated November 15, 2021, the Estate Officer observed that the earlier Show cause Notice dated November 11, 2020 was recalled as cancelled and directed the parties not to act on such notice, simultaneously directing the KoPT to issue a fresh show cause notice on the basis of the revised calculations in terms of Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) act, 1971 (for short, 'the PP act') fixing December 8, 2021 for production of documents, evidence, hearing, etc.

6. Consequently, a fresh show cause notice was issued on November 15, 2021 itself by the Estate Officer of the KoPT to the petitioners under sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the PP act, on the basis of the fresh calculations.

7. The present writ petition has been moved against the said show cause notice and order of the Estate Officer, both dated November 15, 2021, also seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus desisting the respondents from claiming any charges from the petitioner no. 1 after February 24, 2020.

8. The learned Senior advocate appearing for the petitioners contends that the Estate Officer acted de hors the provisions of Section 7 of the PP act in holding the petitioners to be 'unauthorized occupants' within the purview of Section 7 (3) of the said act by an ex parte order, without giving any prior opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and/or without any show cause notice.

9. By placing reliance on the provisions of Section 7 and the relevant proforma given in the PP Rules, 1971, the learned Senior advocate for the petitioners argues that it was the incumbent statutory duty of the Estate Officer to give a prior hearing to the petitioners by issuing a show cause notice, before arriving at the conclusion that the petitioners were unauthorised occupants in respect of the premises.

10. Learned counsel argues that, borrowing the principle incorporated in Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the KoPT was precluded fr