SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(Ori) 218

AIR 2010 Ori 137
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
L. Mohapatra and B.K. Patel, JJ.
Sunabeda Merchants Association and Ors. – Appellant
Vs.
Union of India (UOI) and Ors. – Respondent
Decided On: 09.04.2010

The main legal point established in the judgment is that eviction from quarters under the Public Premises Act did not violate Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Headnote:

Article 21 Violation - Eviction from Quarters - Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 - The court analyzed the violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in the context of eviction from quarters under the Public Premises Act. The court considered the right to livelihood and the necessity of eviction to accommodate HAL employees. The court referred to the State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raja Mahendra Pal and Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee cases to support its decision. The court found no violation of Article 21 and dismissed the writ applications.

Fact of the Case:

The Sunabeda Merchants Association and others challenged the legality of eviction from quarters allotted to them by HAL. HAL wanted to evict them to accommodate its employees due to expansion projects.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the eviction did not violate Article 21 as the right to livelihood was not being taken away, and the shop owners were free to run their businesses. The court also noted that steps were taken against other private individuals and retired employees, indicating no discrimination.

Issues: The main issues were the violation of Article 21, the necessity of eviction to accommodate HAL employees, and alleged discrimination against the shop owners.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the eviction did not violate Article 21 and referred to relevant case law to support its decision. The court also found no discrimination as steps were taken against other private individuals and retired employees.

Final Decision: The court dismissed both the writ applications, ruling in favor of HAL's eviction of the shop owners from the quarters.

JUDGMENT

L. Mohapatra, J.

1. W.P. (C) No. 16632 of 2009 has been filed by the Sunabeda Merchants Association and two others questioning the legality of authority of opposite parties 2 to 4 in taking action for eviction of its members from the quarters allotted to them and W.P. (C) No. 16546 of 2009 has been filed by Ramesh Ch. Padhi in his individual capacity raising the very same question. Therefore, these two writ applications were heard together and are disposed of in this common judgment.

2. The members of the Association, who had filed writ application individually challenging the order passed by the Estate Officer have been dealt with and disposed of separately since the question involved in those cases was different than these two writ applications. The case of the Association and the petitioner in the connected writ application is that in the year 1967 when the process of construction of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. : Township was going on, opposite party No. 2 in W.P. (C) No. 16632 of 2009 made an offer to persons, who were interested for opening of shops and were also promised that they would be allotted with quarters for their occupation in the Township as no private land is available in the Township to accommodate any one except the Officers of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (in short 'HAL'). Accordingly, the members of the Association including the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 16546 of 2009 submitted their applications and they were allotted with not only the shop rooms but also quarters to accommodate their respective families. The members of the Association came into business within the Township of HAL in different phases and have been running their shops for a considerable length of time. HAL was collecting rent for the quarters apart from water and electricity charges and security deposit had also collected from the members of the Association in respect of each allotment of quarters. At the time of allotment of quarters, a condition was imposed to the effect that if at any time for any reason the allottees are allotted alternative accommodation, they will shift to the new accommodation that may be provided to them. It was also stipulated that when the accommodation is no longer required by the allottees due to any reason or the allotment is cancelled by HAL for any breach of rules, the allottees are responsible for handing over possession of the same to the Town Administration Department in terms of the allotment order. According to the Association, the terms and conditions in respect of allotment of quarter clearly establish that such allotment shall not be cancelled unless alternative accommodation is made available to these members and cancellation of allotment of quarters can only be made, if any allottee violates the conditions provided in the allotment letter. As it appears from the averments made in both the writ applications, by now nearabout 145 such private persons have been allotted with shop rooms and quarters and they are continuing to occupy both. The license granted in favour of the allottees was renewed from time to time but there has been no renewal from the year 2003. When the matter stood thus, opposite party No. 2 by letter dated 10th October, 2003 informed the members of the Association that they should hand over possession of the quarters as and when required by the management. According to the Association and its members, the terms and conditions in the said letter being contrary to what had been promised, objections were raised. The Association and its members requested the said opposite party No. 2 for renewal of the license without any further terms and conditions but the said relief was not granted. In order to resolve the dispute, on 3-6-2006 a joint meeting was convened in the office of the General Manager (P & A) which was attended by three Senior Officers of HAL and the members of the Association. After due deliberation, the Chief Manager (P & A) representing the management of HAL declared




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top