Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 978 (PNJ)

Radhey Shyam v. Union of India

2007-04-24

S.N.AGGARWAL

body2007
JUDGMENT S. N. Aggarwal, J.- CM No.6589 of 2007. This application has been filed for placing on record news item published in the Tribune dated 19.4.2007. This application is accepted subject to all just exceptions and the news item dated 19.4.2007 is taken on record. CM Nos.20003 of 2006 and 6590 of 2007. CM No.20003 of 2006 was filed for allowing the petitioner to retain possession of Government house No.2, Water Works Complex, Mansa Devi Complex, Mani Majra, Chandigarh the vacation of which has been ordered vide order dated 16.12.2005 (Annexure P-18). CM No.6590 of 2007 has been filed for seeking direction to restrain the respondents from removing house hold articles of the petitioner from his house and to permit him to continue in the house. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as Sectional Officer with the respondents. He was removed from service vide order dated 4.10.1999. The appeal filed by him was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 5.5.2004. The petitioner filed writ petition to challenge both these orders. 3. This writ petition was admitted by this Court vide order dated 24.10.2005. It was ordered to be heard on 5.12.2005. 4. During the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner filed an application alleging that in official capacity, he was in possession of Government accommodation bearing house No.2, Water Works Complex, Mansa Devi Complex, Mani Majra, Chandigarh but the Municipal Corporation has asked the petitioner to vacate the said house. Even on 28.11.2006, some officer of the department had reached there to get that house vacated. Hence, application was filed for permitting the petitioner to retain the possession over Government house in question. 5. The respondents filed written reply and contested this petition. It was pleaded that the house was already sealed on 4.12.2006 by the Sub Divisional Magistrate (E), UT, Chandigarh under the Public Premises Act. The enforcement agency was different from the answering respondents. The petitioner had made representation dated 6.12.2006 to the Sub Divisional Magistrate (E), UT, Chandigarh. No stay order was passed by this Court nor any oral undertaking was given by the learned counsel for the respondents but the petitioner had mis-represented to the S.D.M (E), UT, Chandigarh that an oral undertaking was given by the counsel for Municipal Corporation on the asking of the Court. No stay order was passed by this Court nor any oral undertaking was given by the learned counsel for the respondents but the petitioner had mis-represented to the S.D.M (E), UT, Chandigarh that an oral undertaking was given by the counsel for Municipal Corporation on the asking of the Court. The said accommodation was official accommodation with the Sectional Officer and since the petitioner was no longer in the service of the respondents, therefore, he was not entitled to any stay order. 6. CM No.6590 of 2007 was filed to restrain the respondents from removing house hold articles of the petitioner from his house. 7. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner had come to the Court while the wife of the petitioner had gone to the market and the son had gone to the school when the premises were sealed by the authorities. 8. This version has been considered. It does not appear to be correct because if the petitioner,his wife and his son had been present in the house,then the same could not have been sealed. If the premises had been sealed in their absence,as pleaded in the application,then after the petitioner, his wife and son had returned and they saw the house sealed, they could have filed some kind of application immediately to this Court or before some other authority but no such application was filed by the petitioner immediately after the house was found by them sealed on 4.12.2006. The application was filed by him before the SDM, UT Chandigarh on 6.12.2006, neither on 4.12.2006 nor on 5.12.2006. 9. Admittedly, at present the petitioner is not in service as his services have been terminated by the respondents on serious charges. House No.2, Water Works Complex, Mansa Devi Complex, Mani Majra, Chandigarh is the official residence of the Sectional Officer and since the petitioner was no longer in service, it was liable to be got vacated from the petitioner by the competent authority. If the petitioner succeeds in the writ petition, he can apply for the said house once again but since he is no longer in service at the moment, therefore, he has no right to retain possession over this house. 10. In view of the discussion held above, there is no merit in these applications and the same are dismissed. ——————————