Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
Gaurav Bhardwaj - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 16180 of 2022 & CM Appl. 50607 of 2022
Decided On : 24-11-2022
Eviction from government accommodation upheld as lawful when occupant became unauthorized after cancellation of allotment due to ineligibility; principles of natural justice were not violated.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - Eviction of unauthorized occupant from government accommodation - Petitioner’s application for regularization rejected due to ineligibility after voluntary retirement - Court found no violation of principles of natural justice and confirmed authority's decision as lawful. (Paras 22, 30)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought regularization of residential accommodation previously allotted to a deceased police officer, claiming entitlement based on Rule 41 of the CRPF Rules, after facing eviction orders citing unauthorized occupation. (Paras 1, 2, 15)
Findings of Court:
The impugned orders were upheld, confirming the petitioner's unauthorized occupation and ineligibility for regularization of accommodation previously allotted. Additionally, substantial fees were owed due to unauthorized occupation. (Paras 22, 30)
Issues: Whether the petitioner was unlawfully occupying the premises post-cancellation and if proper procedures were followed in the issuance of eviction orders. (Paras 20, 30)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner was not entitled to retain the accommodation after surpassing the authorized period due to voluntary retirement and subsequent cancellation of the allotment; procedural fairness was upheld as notices and opportunities were duly provided. (Paras 22, 30)
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition seeks regularization of accommodation (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. petitioners contest the validity of eviction orders (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. respondents defend eviction based on petitioner's ineligibility (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. court supports respondents' decision on petitioner's eviction (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 5. court dismisses petition due to lack of merit (Para 31 , 32 , 33) |
ORDER
Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 50608/2022
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 16180/2022
1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking inter alia the following reliefs:
"I. Issue a writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in the nature of Mandamus against the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 directing them to regularize the residential accommodation in favour of the Petitioner No.1 as per his Application dated 20.7.2022 and the earlier application dated 25.06.2018;
II. Issue a writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in the nature of Certiorari setting-aside the Communication dated 15.09.2022 (received in the Supreme Court of India, Admn. General Branch on 19.10.2022) passed by the Respondent No.2 herein;
III. Issue a writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in the nature of Certiorari setting-aside the Order No. 1248/MS/TMP/TBC/2018 dated 17.09.2018 passed by the Respondent No.2 herein.
IV. Issue a writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in the nature of Certiorari setting-aside the Recovery Order dated 09.10.2018 issued by the Respondent No.2 along with provisional rent assessment report;
V. Issue a writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in the nature of certiorari setting-aside the Eviction Order No. EC/74/AD/LIT/2018/T-II dated 12.10.2018 passed by the Respondent No.3;"
2. The petitioner no. 2, since deceased, was appointed with the Department of Delhi Police and was discharging his duties therein. The rest of the petitioners are his legal heirs. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner no. 2 was eligible for allotment of rent-free unfurnished accommodation as per Rule 41 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (hereinafter "CRPF Rules") and was accordingly, allotted Quarter No. 1248, Type-II, M.S. Flat, Timarpur, Delhi, by the Delhi Police Head Quarters vide PHQ Order No. 3913-18/Allot. Cell/PHQ dated 29th May 1990. Thereafter, petitioner no. 2 was transferred on deputation to the office of respondent no. 5 and was accordingly, relieved from the Delhi Police on 21st April 1998. Subsequently, the petitioner no. 2 was repatriated to the Delhi Police on 1st August 2002 and relieved from the office of respondent no. 5. The petitioner no. 2 and his family members continued to stay in possession of the accommodation allotted to the petitioner no.2.
3. On 4th January 2018, a Show Cause Notice under Section 4(1) and 4 (2)(b) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 was issued in the name of the petitioner no. 2 asking him to show cause as to why an eviction order should not be passed against him since he was occupying a public premises after cancellation of allotment. The petitioner no. 2 had replied to the said Show Cause Notice and also entered appearance when called upon by the respondent no. 3.
4. The petitioner thereafter took voluntary retirement from the office of Delhi Police on 4th August 2018.
5. Ultimately, vide order dated 16th July 2018, the respondent no. 4 cancelled the residential accommodation of the petitioner no. 2 and directed him to vacate the accommodation after a period of 4 months from the date of issue of the rejection order. Thereafter, the petitioner no. 1 applied for regularisation of General Pool Residential Accommodation to the respondent no. 2, however, the same came to be rejected vide order dated 17th September 2018.
6. Subsequent, thereto, an application dated 24th September 2018 was
