This is a writ petition challenging the orders of eviction passed by the competent authority vide Annexures-5, 5/1 and Annexure-6 in exercise of power under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
2. Short background involving the case is that the petitioner was allotted with Quarters No.B/217, Sector-6, Rourkela. Pleading involving the writ petition discloses that the petitioner was allotted with the above quarters by Rourkela Steel Plant with his addressed as a representative of Newspaper "Pragatibadi" as clearly disclosed in Annexure-1. Prior to allotment of the quarter under annexure-1, petitioner was residing in Quarters No.C.198, which had been allotted in favour of the Editor 'Hindustan Samachar" Cooperative Society Ltd. Vide allotment order No.261 dated 22.3.1973. In the year 1982, petitioner was forcibly evicted there from on the premises of quarter being required for occupation of the Steel Plant Employees and subsequently the petitioner was allotted with Quarters vide annexure-1 involved herein. While the matter stood thus, on 27.1.1997 the petitioner was issued with a notice signed by one B.B.Nayak Manager (TS) NEA asking him to show cause as to why the allotment of quarters made in his favour vide Annexure-1 should not be cancelled since he was no more a representative of "Pragatibadi". Petitioner submitted a reply pursuant to the above notice on 10.1.1997 stating therein that he was continuing as a local representative of "Hindustan Samachar" and also continuing to pursue his avocation as a journalist. Thereafter another letter dated 29.3.1997 was issued by the Manager (TS) NEA communicating the petitioner about the decision for withdrawal of the allotment of quarters made in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner was called upon to handover the vacant possession within a period of fifteen days. Subsequently, another letter dated 13.4.2000 giving reference to the cancellation of allotment letter dated 29.3.1997 was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner therein was requested to vacate the quarters by 29.4.2000 and also to clear all outstanding dues vide Annexure-3. Petitioner made a representation and did not vacate the quarters. In the meanwhile, on 12.5.2000 the petitioner was issued with a notice under Section 4 (1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 signed by the Estate Officer involving P.P.Case No.8037 of 2000, a proceeding was initiated under the premises that petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of the public premises. Petitioner contested the proceeding on various grounds and ultimately the Estate Officer by his order dated 5.2.2003 while allowing the proceeding involved herein held that the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of the quarters and consequently passed an order of eviction of the petitioner under Section 5 (1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 finds place at Annexure-5 and Annexure-5/1. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 9 of the P.P. Act before the appellate authority registered as Civil Misc. Case No.5 of 2003. Finally the appellate authority vide his judgment dated 25.3.2004 dismissed the appeal thereby maintaining the orders passed by the Estate Officer, impugned herein.
3. Sri D.Panda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on reiteration of the plea taken by the petitioner before the SAIL authority by resisting the eviction process before the Estate Officer and also the stand taken before the appellate authority submitted that for the petitioner being provided with a Quarters for his individual capacity and there was no reason for asking the petitioner to vacate the quarters on the premises that he is no more continuing as the representative of Pragatibadi. Sri Panda, learned counsel also taking to the provision of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 contested the proceeding on the premises of non-compliance of requirement therein more particularly claimed that the proceedings becomes bad for there being no compliance of the provisions under Section 4 (2) (a) and (b) and also Section 4(4) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
4. Sri Biplab Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the SAIL authority while taking this Court to the plea of the owner of the quarters submitted that Steel Authority of India Limited is a Public Sector Company and the quarter involved was allotted in favour of Sri A.P.Biswal on his representation that he is a representative of Pragatibadi, the Daily Odia Newspaper. While the petitioner was continuing as such, a letter dated 27.9.1995 was issued to the petitioner asking him to furnish the certificate in support of his continuance as the representative of Pragatibadi. The petitioner failed to produce any such certificate. In another development on correspondence directly to the Pragatibadi, Bhubaneswar vide their letter dated 8.7.1995 informing the authority that they had one Anil Mohanty, associated as their correspondent at Rourkela since 1995 and no other person except Sri Mohanty ever existed as their correspondent. Petitioner was once again asked to provide necessary certificate in support of his status on 9.2.1996 and the petitioner failed in providing any such proof. It is on the basis of petitioner failing to establish that he still continues to be a correspondent/representative of Pragatibadi, proceeding was initiated under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and the proceeding ended with contest against the petitioner. Subsequently, in appeal, the petitioner again failed in satisfying the appellate authority and lost in his appeal attempt. For the reasons assigned in the impugned order at Annexure-5/1 and Annexure-6, Sri Mohanty, learned counsel for the SAIL contended that there is no infirmity involving the proceedings or in the impugned orders requiring this Court for interfering in the same.
5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds from his own pleading though at the one hand the petitioner submits that he was allotted with the quarters in his personal capacity but from the stand taken in the notice issued to the petitioner for vacating the quarter, it appears, the petitioner all through given notice on the premises that he is no more continuing as a correspondent of the Pragatibadi. On the correspondence of the SAIL to the Pragatibadi establishment to give a certificate of continuance of the petitioner as a correspondent of the Pragatibadi, the Vice President of Pragatibadi, Bhubaneswar vide letter dated 8.7.1995 (Ext-7) clearly informed that they had no correspondent in the name of Adwaita Prasad Biswal, which became the foundation for forcing the establishment to initiate the P.P.Case No. 8037 of 2000. Going through the pleading of the writ petition, this Court finds the petitioner has the following pleadings in paragrapahs-6, 7 and 8 of the writ petition:
"6.That prior to the allotment of the aforesaid quarters the petitioner was residing in Qr. No.C/198 which had been allotted in favour of the editor "Hindustan Samachar" Cooperative Society Ltd. vide allotment order No.261 dated 22.3.1973 for occupation of its special Correspondent at Rourkela. In the year 1982,the petitioner was forcibly evicted there from on the ground that the quarters was necessary for occupation of steel plant employees and subsequently allotment was made in favour of the petitioner of another quarters vide Annexure-1 above. In 1983, when the present allotment was made by the petitioner was continuing as special correspondent of "Hindustan Samachar" and correspondent of the newspaper "Pragatibadi".
7. That the petitioner's is the only instance where an allotment had been made in the name of the journalist/representative actually occupying the quarters. Previous to this allotment petitioner was occupying quarters allotted in favour of the "Hindustan Samachar" news agency for occupation of its special correspondent i.e. this petitioner and at present all other allotments of the quarters are being made in favour of the editors of the news agency/newspaper and not in favour of the journalist/representative actually in occupation of the quarters. The petitioner had taken possession of the quarters in questions after allotment having been made in his favour on 19.3.1983 and since then is in continuous occupation of the quarters. This petitioner has never changed his avocation in life and continues to be a journalist and continues to represent the news agency "Hindustan Samachar" in Rourkela which he was both at the time of allotment i.e. d. 16.3.1983 and even today he also continues to contribute news and articles to major newspapers of Orissa including "Pragatibadi".
8. that on 27.1.1997 the petitioner was issued with a notice signed by one B.B.Nayak, Manager (TS) NEA asking him to show cause as to why the allotment of quarters made in his favour vide Annexure-1 should not be cancelled since he was no more a representative of "Pragatibadi". In response to the said notice petitioner submitted a reply dt.10.01.1997 stating therein that he was continuing as local representative of "Hindustan Samachar" at Rourkela and also was continuing to pursue his avocation as a journalist. He stated that he had earlier been in occupation of a quarters allotted to the Hindustan Samachar" news agency from which he had been evicted and subsequently he had been allotted with the present quarters in his name indicating that he was the correspondent of "Pragatibadi" and the allotment order did not mention that he was also a correspondent of the "Hindustan Samachar". He stated further that as the allotment was in his name and as he continued to pursue a career in journalism he was entitled to continue in occupation. Thereafter by letter No.3 (364) 73 (Pt) 4489/91 dt. 29.03.1997 was issued under the signature of Sri B.B.Nayak, the Manager (TS) NEA, Rourkela Steel Plant who informed the petitioner that the allotment of quarters No.B/217 at Sector 56 was being withdrawn since the purpose of allotment was no longer in existence and petitioner was called upon to hand over vacant possession within a period of 15 days from the date of issue of the letter and to clear all the dues. Petitioner thereupon met Sri B.B.Nayak, Manager (TS) NEA in person and appraised him of the situation, where after the letter dated 29.03.1997 was not acted upon and petitioner continued to occupy the quarters."
From the pleadings involved in paragraphs-6, 7 and 8, it appears the petitioner's request to have the allotment of quarter being a correspondent of Pragatibadi and somewhere even the petitioner goes to the extent of mentioning that he was also previously occupying the quarters allotted in favour of Hindustan Samachar available for occupation of its special correspondent. In paragraph-8 the petitioner has a clear statement to have submitted a reply on 10.1.1997 indicating therein that he was continuing as a local representative of Hindustan Samachar at Rourkela and that he was also continuing to pursue his avocation as a journalist. This Court from the perusal of the whole pleading and the observation of the courts below, nowhere finds that the petitioner has produced any document for his having any link with any Newspaper establishment. For the above clear statement of the petitioner i.e. the petitioner all through claiming to be occupying the quarters in his particular capacity, the petitioner's claim that he was occupying the quarters in his personal capacity is unacceptable. Surprisingly, petitioner did not possess a single scrap of paper establishing that he was continuing as a correspondent of any Newspaper establishment. Mere description involving the allotment letter cannot create any right in favour of the petitioner. Be that as it may, from the documents from both the sides, this Court finds the Company sometimes allots the quarters in favour of Newspaper establishment and, therefore, this Court finds there was no occasion for the authority to allot the quarters in favour of the petitioner in his individual capacity. Allotment Rule referred to by the parties has no scope also to allot quarters in favour of nonemployees. Be that as it may, on his own submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is no more in occupation of the quarters. It is at this state, from the order dated 11.5.2004 involving Misc. Case No.4859 of 2004 this Court while disposing the above Misc. Case has also recorded that petitioner has already been evicted from the quarter. From the order dated 31.8.2004, this Court again finds in disposal of Misc. Case No.6361 of 2004, a Division Bench of this Court passed the following order:
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for Rourkela Steel Plant.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we direct that petitioner shall be permitted to remove his belongings from the quarter in qu
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
estion in presence of the Officers of the Rourkela Steel Plant on the date and time to be fixed by the Officers of the Steel Plant in consultation with the parties. It is made clear that petitioner shall not be allowed to occupy the quarters till disposal of the writ application. The Misc. Case is accordingly disposed of." Thus the petitioner is no more in occupation of the quarter for his eviction from quarter since 2004. For there is clear denial by establishment "Pragatibadi" denying petitioner ever remained as agent or correspondent of "Pragatibadi", the petitioner's occupying the quarter completely on falsehood. Petitioner being asked for even failed in proceeding a single scrap of paper to establish that he is associated with "Pragatibadi". Thus, the petitioner does not deserve any consideration. 6. Further, for the contest involved herein involving the impugned orders at Annexures-5 and 6, this Court from the observations involved herein, the stand of the parties therein and the stand herein, finds the petitioner has failed in establishing his right to continue in the quarter in question despite of providing ample opportunity. For the concurrent finding of fact by both the authorities, this Court also finds no scope for interfering in such matter in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition thus stands dismissed. However, there is no order as to cost.