The expiration of a license and the presence of encroachment causing inconvenience and preventing road widening can justify the refusal of license renewal and order of eviction.

R.K. Merathia, J

1. The appellant, challenging the order of refusal to the licence and the order of eviction, has filed the writ petition. The same has been dismissed by the learned single Judge; hence this appeal.

2. The only question raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that he has admittedly licence and originally he was given allotment of the area in question for a period of two years. Thereafter, he filed application for renewal. Pending the renewal application, the order of removal of encroachment was passed and while the order of removal of encroachment was challenged, learned Single Judge passed an order directing the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, to hear and pass final order with reference to the renewal. It is contended by the counsel for the appellant that in the event of renewal not being considered, the authority ought to have initiated eviction proceeding and without initiating the eviction proceeding, the authority concerned straightway passed the order of eviction which is not valid. According to him, eviction proceeding must have been initiated according to the law and rules as contemplated by the Act and straightway resorting to eviction without following the required rules is not in accordance with law and as such, the learned Single Judge is wrong in dismissing the writ petition.

3. We have heard counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the respondents.

4. There is no dispute in the fact that the allotment of the place was made in favour of the appellant on 21.9.2002 only for a period of two years. Even according to the appellant, on 27.9.2004 he filed an application for renewal before the authority concerned and the same was pending. In the meantime, an order has been passed by the authority in pursuance of the order of this Court in a petition filed by one, Basudeo Singh, for removal of the encroachment and for removal of all the persons whose period of license has not been extended. Challenging that, the writ petition has been filed by the appellant along with two others in whose favour allotment was made in the same row. By order dated 2.2.2006, the learned Single Judge passed an order directing the authorities to hear the petitioners therein and pass an order determining their case for renewal or for eviction. The relevant portion of the order dated 2.2.2006 is as follows:

In the facts and circumstances, the last part of the impugned order dated 20th December, 2005, so far it relates to the petitioners, is set aside. The cases of all the petitioners are remitted to the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur. The petitioners will appear before him on or before 28th February, 2006 and produce their licenses and the applications, if any, preferred for renewal of such licenses. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, in his turn, after hearing the petitioners, will determine whether it would be appropriate in the case of one or other petitioner to renew the license; and/or to evict them. Till such decision is taken, the authorities will not evict the petitioners.

5. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the authority concerned, the Deputy Commissioner, conducted an enquiry, heard the parties and ultimately came to the conclusion that as the construction of the building in the place allotted was causing inconvenience in the thoroughfare and also preventing widening of the road, it would be appropriate to pass order refusing to renew and evicting the said petitioners from the place allotted. This order has been passed on 24.4.2006. As indicated above the learned Single Judge, in the impugned order, said nothing wrong that the order dated 24.4.2006 has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 2.2.2006.

6. The main contention urged by the counsel for the appellant is that the order of eviction has been passed without following all the procedures.

7. This contention of the counsel for the appellant is not sustainable