Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 63 (JK)

Usha Kher v. State Of J. &K.

2004-03-19

S.K.GUPTA

body2004
A short submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the respondents vide order No.DE of 2003 dated 25-04-2003 made an allotment of Set No.7-K1, Poonch House, Jammu, to the petitioner initially on payment of rent under rules for a period up to October, 2003. The allottee, who happens to be an Inspector in the J&K Police Force, was also asked to execute necessary Licence deed with the Deputy Director Estate, Jammu. The possession of the quarter was handed over in pursuance of the allotment order to the petitioner, allottee. The petitioner continues to be in possession of the said quarter in pursuance of the said allotment order. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are not accepting the rent and process of cancellation of the quarter allotted to the petitioner has been initiated without affording her an opportunity of being heard, which led the petitioner to approach the Court, seeking a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to deposit the rent in respect of Quarter No.7-K1 located at Poonch House, Jammu, allotted in her favour and also not to put an end to the allotment of the said quarter. The stand of the respondents in their reply is that the allotment of the quarter was made to the petitioner taking into account the health of her mother. It is further stated that the said allotment was made under the impression that the said quarter is from the non-move quota. 3. Petition is admitted to be heard and taken up with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties for final disposal. 4. It is not in dispute that the allotment of the quarter was made to the petitioner by issuance of a proper order. It is also admitted that the allotment was made taking into consideration the state of health of her mother. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner has ever defaulted in the payment of rent. Mr. K.M. Bhatti, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, admitted that the allotment of the Government accommodation was made to the petitioner by the executives in exercise of its wide powers to selected case for special treatment. The said allotment was made in taking into account the ailment of her mother. Mr. K.M. Bhatti, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, admitted that the allotment of the Government accommodation was made to the petitioner by the executives in exercise of its wide powers to selected case for special treatment. The said allotment was made in taking into account the ailment of her mother. In reply, it is nowhere indicated by the respondents that the ailment of the petitioners mother has been cured and her health improved, which was the basis for the allotment of accommodation to the petitioner. This clearly contemplates that the health of her mother has no improved and ailment still continues. The cancellation of the Government accommodation of the petitioner, if at all, is to be made, procedure prescribed by law has to be followed by serving a notice and after affording an opportunity of being heard, as is the minimum requirement of principles of natural justice under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 5. Petition is, therefore, disposed of accordingly with following directions: (1) The respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner for continuation of the allotment on the basis taken into consideration at the time of making the allotment and the petitioner be permitted to deposit the rent of the Government accommodation under rules; (2) In case the respondents choose to cancel the allotment for reasons whatsoever, the same shall not be made without adopting due course of law and in compliance to the principles of natural justice. 6. The petition is disposed of in the terms indicated above.