ORDER :

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, seeks leave of this Court to make necessary correction in the brief and submits that due to inadvertence the provision conferred to this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been invoked in place of Article 226 of Constitution of India.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary correction in the brief in course of the day.

3. This writ petition is against the judgment dated 30th June, 2016 passed in Civil (Misc.) Appeal No.10 of 2016 whereby and whereunder the order passed by State officer under the provision of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'of the Act, 1971”) dated 19.03.2016 in Case No.A/E-78 of 2003 has been refused to be interfered with.

4. The case of the petitioner is that by virtue of deed of partnership entered into with the Bokaro Steel City Central Consumers Co-operative Store Ltd. and M/s Classic Fashion Maker Prop. of Vinay Prakash, petitioner is in possession of the aforesaid shop, therefore, he is having valid right to occupy the said shop. He submits that the aforesaid complex has been leased in favour of Bokaro Steel City Central Central Consumers Co-operative Store Ltd. and by virtue of the said lease deed the said shop has been allotted in favour of petitioner by the said Co-operative Store Ltd.

5. A proceeding under the provision of the Act, 1971 has been initiated by the State officer but the State officer who had issued the notice having been transferred, another State officer has been appointed but hearing was concluded by the predecessor in the office but the order has been passed by the successor in office and therefore proper appreciation cannot be said to be made on the basis of the principle that if any lis is being heard by incumbent, it is to be answered by the said incumbent and if the successor in office is assuming the office in consequence of transfer it is the duty of the successor in office to provide an opportunity of hearing to the applicant for better appreciation of the issues before taking final decision but having not done so the order passed by the said officer cannot be said to be proper.

6. The petitioner, being aggrieved with the order passed by the State officer on the aforesaid ground has preferred appeal before the District Judge under the provision of the Act, 1971 but without appreciating the aforesaid aspect of the matter the appeal has been declined to be interfered with in consequence thereof, the order passed by the State officer has been affirmed.

7. Petitioner, being aggrieved with the same is before this Court by way of instant writ petition assailing the same on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice.

8. Learned counsel appearing for Steel Authority of India Ltd. has submitted that petitioner cannot claim his right on the basis of deed of partnership that too, the said deed of partnership is not registered one, therefore it is having no legal sanctity.

9. So far as contention of petitioner that the State officer who has passed order has not provided an opportunity, the same is not causing any prejudice to the petitioner since the petitioner is having no legal right to occupy the shop for the reason that there is no valid allotment order in his favour by the competent authority.

10. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions, the petitioner, being aggrieved with the order passed by the State officer as also the appellate authority under the provision of law is before this Court whereby and whereunder he has been declared to be unauthorised occupant under the provision of the Act, 1971. The petitioner has taken the ground of violation of principle of natural justice, as indicated hereinabove.

11. There is no dispute about the fact that the provision of natural justice is to be observed and to that effect the specific provision has been made und