IMPORTANT POINT
The interpretation of statutory provisions must be clear and not restrictive, particularly regarding the appeal process under the M.P. Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adiniyam, 1974.

ORDER :

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J.)

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 18.5.2015 as also against the order dated 9.6.2015, passed by respondent No.2, with regard to the eviction of the petitioner.

2. The Appellate Authority under M.P. (Now CG) Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adiniyam, 1974 (in short “the Act, 1974”) entertained an appeal (Appeal Case No.347/c-121 Year 2013-14) filed by respondent No.4 i.e. Chhattisgarh Infrastructure and Development Corporation against the order dated 14.2.2014 passed by the competent authority i.e. the SDO, Raipur for eviction of the present petitioner under the said Act. By the aforesaid order dated 14.2.2014, the competent authority dismissed the application filed by respondent No.4 – Department, However, in the appeal filed by respondent No.4, the Appellate Authority, by the order dated 18.5.2015, remitted the matter to the competent authority -SDO, Raipur to decide the same on merits and thereafter, the Review Petition filed by the present petitioner was also dismissed by the order dated 9.6.2015.

3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner was originally employed by the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (MPSRTC) in the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh and after the reorganisation of the State of Madhya Pradesh, MPSRTC was abolished and the employees of the said Department were amalgamated in the Chhattisgarh Infrastructure and Development Corporation (CIDC). Thereafter, the petitioner was sent on deputation to the State Warehousing Corporation, Raipur and he was was allotted Government Quarter No.A-5, Sector 1, Shankar Nagar, Raipur. After the superannuation of the petitioner, he was reappointed on contractual basis in Naya Raipur Development Authority. However, at present, as informed by learned counsel for the petitioner, his contractual tenure has completed and he is not engaged in any service of the Government. Inspite of his completion of tenure, the petitioner retained Government Quarter No. A-5 Sector 1, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, on account of which, the office of respondent No.4 moved an application before the competent authority for eviction of the petitioner from the Government Quarter and in this regard, a show cause notice was also issued to him. Nevertheless, after considering the reply filed by the petitioner, as he was working on contractual basis , the competent authority dropped the proceeding by the order dated 14.2.2014 and thereby, rejected the application filed by the respondent No.4 -Department. Against the said order, the Department has preferred an Appeal and the same was allowed by the impugned order dated 18.5.2015, against which, the petitioner has filed a review petition and the same was also dismissed by the impugned order dated 9.6.2015. Hence, this Petition.

4. Mr. CJK Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no order has been passed in terms of Section 5 of the Act, 1974 and when no orders pertaining to eviction are passed under Section 5, an appeal under Section 9 of the Act, 1974 is not maintainable. This proposition has been clarified and interpretated in the matter of Khushal Chand Vs. State of MP reported in 2001 (1) MPLJ 680. The orders for eviction or orders passed under Section 5 or 7 alone are appealable under Section 9 of the Act, 1974. He submits that as no such order has been passed, the appeal entertained by the Appellate Authority would itself be bad in law. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition and set-aside the impugned orders.

5. On the contrary, Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate for Respondent No.4 would submit that the issue involved in the present matter directly came up before the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra Vs. Marwanjee F. Desai and others, reported in (2002) 2 SCC 318, which is pari materia with regard to enactment of Bombay Government Prem