Hon’ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J.—The issue which falls for determination in the present reference to the Full Bench, turns upon the provisions of Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (Act). Section 9 provides for an appeal against an order of the Estate Officer made in respect of public premises under Section 5 or Section 5B or Section 5C or Section 7. As the Section stands, no appeal has been provided against an order of the Estate Officer under Section 5A. Yet, a Division Bench of this Court held in Sanjay Agarwal v. Union of India, Writ-C No. 14580 of 2012, decided on 26 March, 2012, that an appeal in respect of an order made under Section 5A is maintainable under Section 9. When this judgment was cited before the learned Single Judge in a batch of writ petitions, the Court found itself unable to agree with the view in Sanjay Agarwal on the ground that the right to appeal is a statutory right and where the statute has not provided an appeal under Section 9 in respect of an order made under Section 5A, an appeal could not be maintained. Hence, the following questions have been referred for decision before the Full Bench, Order dated 16 October, 2015 in Writ-C No. 40360 of 2015 and connected petitions :

“(1) Whether an order passed under Section 5A is appealable under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.

(2) Whether Sanjay Agarwal’s case lays down the correct proposition of law.”

2. The Act was enacted “to provide for the eviction of unauthorised occupants from public premises and for certain incidental matters.” The Act was preceded by a Parliamentary enactment of 1958 (The Public Premises (Eviction and Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958). In Northern India Caterers Private Limited v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1581, the Supreme Court held that the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1959 was void on the ground that it conferred an additional remedy over and above the remedy of a suit and that, by providing two alternative remedies to Government, the Collector had an arbitrary discretion to adopt either the normal procedure or the more drastic procedure envisaged in the Act which was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Act was enacted with a view to overcome the deficiencies which had been observed in the earlier legislation in Court decisions. The avowed object of the enactment was to provide a speedy machinery for the eviction of persons in unauthorised occupation of public premises. The Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying the introduction of the Bill contained the following rationale for the enactment of the law:

“The Court decisions, referred to above, have created serious difficulties for the Government inasmuch as the proceedings taken by the various Estate Officers appointed under the Act either for the eviction of persons who are in unauthorised occupation of public premises or for the recovery of rent or damages from such persons stand null and void. It has become impossible for Government to take expeditious action even in flagrant cases of unauthorised occupation of public premises and recovery of rent or damages for such unauthorised occupation. It is, therefore, considered imperative to restore a speedy machinery for the eviction of persons who are in unauthorised occupation of public premises keeping in view at the same time the necessity of complying with the provision of the Constitution and the judicial pronouncements, referred to above.”

Explaining the rationale for the law, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Ashoka Marketing Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank, (1990) 4 SCC 406, held that:

“...the Public Premises Act has been enacted to deal with the mischief of rampant unauthorised occupation of public premises by providing a speedy machinery for the eviction of persons in unauthorised occupation. In order to secure this object the said Ac