ORDER : Regarding Union of India and Governments of all the States and Union Territories 1. Heard Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned amicus; Shri Gopal Subramanium, learned Additional Solicitor General representing the learned Attorney General for India, Shri A. Sharan; learned Additional Solicitor General representing the Union of India and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the States and Union Territories. Today, date was fixed for hearing the matters enumerated in paras 13 to 18 of the order dated 24-7-2007 and those referred to in para 33 of the order dated 2-8-2007, S.D. Bandi v. Karnataka SRTC, (2011) 15 SCC 709 but no response has been filed on behalf of the Union of India. Responses have been filed on behalf of only some of the States and Union Territories and not all. 2. Paras 13 to 18 of the order dated 24-7-2007, S.D. Bandi v. Karnataka SRTC, (2011) 15 SCC 718 referred to above, read thus: (SCC pp. 722-24) "13. In relation to launching of criminal prosecution, learned counsel pointed out that if a Government servant, after he is called upon by a notice duly served upon him, fails to withdraw from possession of Government premises, he is said to commit criminal trespass within the meaning of Section 441 of the Penal Code (for short `IPC) as amended by Orissa Legislature vide the Indian Penal Code (Orissa Amendment) Act, 1986 (Orissa Act 22 of 1986) and liable to be prosecuted under Section 447 IPC. Section 441 IPC incorporating Orissa Amendment reads thus: `441. Criminal trespass.-Whoever enters into or upon property in possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains "there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person or with intent to commit an offence, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, remains there with the intention of taking unauthorised possession or making unauthorised use of such property and fails to withdraw from such property or its possession or use, when called upon to do so by that another person by notice in writing, duly served on him, is said to commit "criminal trespass".' 14. From a bare reading of the aforesaid provisions, it would be clear that upon service of notice to vacate Government premises, if a Government servant continues to remain in occupation thereof, he would be committing offence of criminal trespass thereby and liable to be prosecuted under Section 447 IPC, which offence is cognizable as would appear from the First Schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code"). In the present case, the aforesaid sixty-six persons are unauthorisedly continuing in occupation of the Government premises even after service of notices upon them to vacate, as such, the State Government would be not only justified but obliged under law to launch criminal prosecution against them under Section 447 IPC by lodging first information reports before the police stations concerned, which must be done within six weeks from today. 15. It appears that in the State of Uttar Pradesh also amendment has been made in Section 441 IPC by the State Legislature vide The Criminal Laws (U.P. Amendment) Act, 1961 (U.P. Act 31 of 1961) which is more or less on the same lines and the same runs thus: `441. Criminal trespass.-Whoever enters into or upon property in possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or, having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, or having entered into or upon such property, whether before or after the coming into force of the Criminal Laws (U.P. Amendment) Act, 1961, with the intention of taking unauthorised possession or making unauthorised use of such property fails to withdraw from such property, or its possession or use when called upon to do so by that another person by notice in writing, duly served upon him, by the date specified in the notice, is said to commit "criminal trespass".' 16. From the First Schedule of the Code, it would appear that the offence is bailable. From the First Schedule of the Code, it would appear that the offence is bailable. Let the States of Orissa and Uttar Pradesh consider the desirability of making State amendment in the First Schedule of the Code for making the offence under Section 441 IPC to be non-bailable so far it relates to continuance of Government servants in Government premises even after service of notices upon them to vacate the same for which we direct the Chief Secretaries of these two States to respond before the next date fixed. 17. Keeping in mind the mushroom growth of unauthorised occupation of Government premises in almost all parts of the country, in flagrant violation of all the rules prevalent in a civilised society, which is detrimental to the interest of large number of Government servants who have been waiting for years together for allotment of Government premises, we feel that a time has come that Governments of all other States and Union Territories should bestow their thoughts and consider desirability of taking steps for amendment of Section 441 IPC by legislatures of the respective States on the lines of the amendments made in the States of Uttar Pradesh or Orissa. They should also consider desirability of amending the First Schedule of the Code for making the offence under Section 441 IPC to be non-bailable so far as it relates to continuance of Government servants in Government premises even after the service of notices upon them to vacate the same. We direct the Chief Secretaries of all other States and Union Territories to respond in this regard before the next date fixed. 18. The Union of India should also consider desirability of making suitable amendments in the relevant public premises statutes dealing with premises belonging to the Union Government providing therein such unauthorised occupation penal and the offence non-bailable one for which response must be filed before the next date fixed. The Union of India should also consider desirability of making amendments in Section 441 IPC and the First Schedule of the Code, as indicated in para 17 above, for which also response must be filed before the next date fixed." (emphasis in original) 3. The Union of India should also consider desirability of making amendments in Section 441 IPC and the First Schedule of the Code, as indicated in para 17 above, for which also response must be filed before the next date fixed." (emphasis in original) 3. Today, it has been submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Union of India that in the Public Premises Eviction Act applicable to the Central Government buildings, if a Government servant fails to vacate the same upon his transfer within the time granted, he cannot be criminally prosecuted. We feel that it is high time that the Central Government should consider the desirability of making suitable amendment in the aforesaid provision. 4. Para 33 of the order dated 2-8-20072 referred to above reads thus: (SCC pp. 716-17) "Union of India, Governments of all the States and Union Territories 33. In relation to realisation of rental/penal rental from unauthorised occupants of Government accommodation, we would like to hear all concerned on the following points: (i) Whether under the Public Premises Acts applicable to the premises of the Union of India, and all the State Governments and Union Territories, there is any provision for adjudication of rental/ penal rental from unauthorised occupants of Government accommodation? (ii) Whether rental/penal rental in relation to Government premises can be realised as land revenue under the Public Demands Recovery Acts applicable to the Union of India and the States and Union Territories? (iii) What are the modes of recovery of land revenue under the Public Demands Recovery Acts applicable to the Union of India and various States and Union Territories and whether it is open to Certificate Officer to first resort to the mode of recovery of public demands by arrest and detention of certificate-debtor in civil prison? (iv) Whether before passing an order for committing the certificate-debtor to civil prison in execution of certificate filed for realisation of land revenue, a Certificate Officer is required to give a certificate-debtor an opportunity of showing cause and pass a reasoned order? (v) Whether a Certificate Officer can under law simultaneously resort to all the modes for recovery of public demands? (v) Whether a Certificate Officer can under law simultaneously resort to all the modes for recovery of public demands? (vi) Whether for recovery of public demand all movables and immovables of a certificate-debtor can be attached and sold and if the answer is in the negative, nature of the properties which are exempted from attachment and sale?" 5. In para 33 of the order dated 2-8-20072 we add three more points as Points (vii), (viii) and (ix) which run thus: (vii) Can a certificate-debtor be committed to civil prison in execution of certificate if he has no means to pay? (viii) What is the meaning of expression "means to pay" e.g. if a certificate-debtor has immovable property and is not taking any steps for sale thereof or not able to sell the same in spite of best efforts for payment of public demands, can it be said that he has means to pay but avoiding to pay the same? (ix) If answer to Question (viii) is in the negative, in which eventuality it can be said that a person has means to pay but avoiding to pay the public demands, e.g. if a person has sufficient rental, interest and business income or income from any other source inasmuch as funds invested in financial institutions, public or private, which is permitted by law to be withdrawn and even then he fails to pay, can it be said that he has means to pay but is avoiding to pay the public demand? 6. It has been pointed out that under the Service Rules applicable to the officers/employees of the Central Government and those of Governments of various States and Union Territories there is no uniform rule that if a Government servant remains in occupation of Government accommodation unauthorisedly, he can be departmentally proceeded with and suspended in contemplation of departmental proceeding. In our view for this matter all concerned should consider desirability of amending the rules in case no such rule is in existence. 7. The Union of India and the Governments of all the States and Union Territories are directed to file responses and serve the same upon the amicus by 23-10-2007 in relation to all the matters enumerated above. Place the matter on 30-10-2007 for hearing all the parties on the aforesaid matters. 8. 7. The Union of India and the Governments of all the States and Union Territories are directed to file responses and serve the same upon the amicus by 23-10-2007 in relation to all the matters enumerated above. Place the matter on 30-10-2007 for hearing all the parties on the aforesaid matters. 8. Let copies of this order be made over to Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned amicus; Shri Gopal Subramanian, learned Additional Solicitor General representing the learned Attorney General for India; Shri A. Sharan, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Union of India and learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the States and Union Territories for the needful.