IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay W.P.A. 23897 of 2013 Nekbar Hossain -Vs-

Union of India & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Sk. Mujibar Rahman For the Respondents/U.O.I. : Ms. Chandreyi Alam Heard on : 13.12.2024, 13.06.2025, 28.08.2025, Judgment on : 02.02.2026 Uploaded on : 05.02.2026 Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.:-

1. The petitioner, a long serving member of the Central Reserve Police Force, narrated a tale of sustained hardship woven through years of service in arduous, terror infested regions of the country. On 16.01.2009, the petitioner had been posted at 82 Bn. C.R.P.F., Signal Platoon, Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir while the petitioner was posted at No.3 Sig Bn.

C.R.P.F., Salt Lake City, Kolkata- 700091.

2. A dispute arose over the retention of his allotted family accommodation at Salt Lake, Kolkata. The petitioner asserted notwithstanding his continuous posting in Jammu & Kashmir, a high security zone where no family accommodation was available, he was under the extant C.R.P.F. Family Accommodation Rules, 2008, lawfully entitled to retain the service quarter where his wife and chronically ailing minor son had been residing being Quarter No.86, Type-II, Block-11, 3 Sig. Bn. C.R.P.F. Sector-V, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700091.

3. It had been the case of the petitioner that repeated issuance of show-

cause notices and coercive orders by the respondent-authorities, principally the Commandant acting as Estate Officer requiring him to vacate the quarter and to pay penal rent at an exorbitant rate were contrary to the statutory framework, the administrative guidelines and the fundamental tenets of fairness.

4. The petitioner emphasized that his son suffering from a chronic kidney condition and undergoing long term treatment at a reputed Kolkata hospital required stable residence. Compelling his family to vacate the quarter, therefore, amounted to inflict exceptional personal hardship. The son was also a student at a school situated in Kestopur.

5. The petitioner submitted that the respondents functioning as “instrumentalities of the state” within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India acted arbitrarily and without application of mind in branding him an “unauthorized occupant” despite successive representations and recommendations from Superior Officers acknowledging his entitlement to retain the accommodation until the completion of his posting in Jammu & Kashmir.

6. The petitioner stated that in conformity to Rule 5 (25) of the C.R.P.F.

Family Accommodation Rules, 2008 read with Clause 2 (d) of Letter No. A.II-2/2008-09-Adm. I dated 28.07.2009 issued by the Administrative Department of Directorate General, C.R.P.F., Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, the petitioner was entitled to be allowed to retain the family quarter till he remained in actual posting at Jammu & Kashmir.

7. The petitioner further contended that the threatened invocation of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 and the proposed deduction of substantial sums from his salary particularly when his monthly net emolument amounted to Rs.16,299/- would strip him of the means required for his son’s medical care and bear sustenance. Such coercive measures, the petitioner asserted, were not only legally unsustainable but also ethically untenable amounting to abuse process of miscarriage of justice.

8. The petitioner stated by a Notice No.A.II-1/11-12/Bldg 3 Sig. dated

13.08.2011, the petitioner was asked to show-cause on or before 13.09.2011 as to why the petitioner would not pay damage rent at the rate of Rs.6609/- only in view of the unauthorized occupation of the said family quarter with effect from 14.09.2011.

9. The petitioner stated in this connection relating to vacation of quarters, the Commandant, 82 Bn. C.R.P.F., J & K originated a signal No.A.II-

1/2011-12-ST dated 19.09.2011 stating, inter alia, as follows:-

“U/C (.) PERSONAL FOR COMDT (.) PSE REF OUR TELEPHO