Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 10 (DEL)

Sushil Aggarwal v. UOI

2009-01-07

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

body2009
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 26th August 2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge acting as an appellate court under Public Premises Act whereby the appeal of the petitioner against the order of Estate Officer was dismissed. 2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioner is a Railway Employee and was in occupation of the Quarter No.70/A2, Railway Quarters, Motia Bagh, Railway Colony, Delhi. He was transferred from Delhi to Rohtak and was directed to vacate the quarter within 15 days; failing which to pay damages @ Rs.7905 per month with effect 30th December 2005. The appellant, however, did not vacate the Quarter. His allotment of quarter was cancelled. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the matter was referred to the Estate Officer. The Estate Officer after giving opportunity to the petitioner herein passed an order under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act and directed the eviction of the quarter and payment of penalty. Against this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the impugned order. 3. The sole contention of the petitioner before this Court is that the Estate Officer had no jurisdiction to pass an order and the matter was governed by Section 138 of the Railways Act, 1890 and thereafter by Section 190 of the Railways Act, 1989. Section 190 of the Railways Act reads as under: 190. 3. The sole contention of the petitioner before this Court is that the Estate Officer had no jurisdiction to pass an order and the matter was governed by Section 138 of the Railways Act, 1890 and thereafter by Section 190 of the Railways Act, 1989. Section 190 of the Railways Act reads as under: 190. Procedure for delivery to railway administration of property detained by a railway servant.- If a railway servant is discharged from service or is suspended, or dies or absconds or absents himself, and he or his wife or widow or any member of his family or his representative reuses or neglects, after notice in writing for that purpose, to deliver up to the railway administration or to a person appointed by the railway administration, in this behalf, any station, office or other building with its appurtenances, or any books papers, keys, equipment or other matters belonging to the railway administration and in the possession or custody or such railway servant at the occurrence of any such event as aforesaid, any metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of the first class may, on application made by or on behalf or the railway administration, order any police officer, with proper assistance, to enter upon the station, office or other building and remove any person found therein and take possession thereof, or to take possession of the books, papers or other matters and to deliver the same to the railway administration or to a person appointment by the railway administration in that behalf. 4. A perusal of the above provisions under Railways Act would show that this provision is applicable only where a railway employee is discharged from service or is suspended or dies or absconds or absents. It is not applicable to an employee who does not meet any of these criteria. It is also clear that the provision is in respect of the property entrusted to a railway employee during his tenure of service to enable him to perform his duties as a railway servant. Prior to Act of 1989 coming into force, the Railways Act, 1890 was applicable and under section 138 of the Railways Act of 1890, power was given to Judicial Magistrate to take possession of any station, dwelling house offices or other building in occupation of the railway servant under the circumstances provided therein. Prior to Act of 1989 coming into force, the Railways Act, 1890 was applicable and under section 138 of the Railways Act of 1890, power was given to Judicial Magistrate to take possession of any station, dwelling house offices or other building in occupation of the railway servant under the circumstances provided therein. However, after the new Act replaced the old Act, the reference to dwelling house was specifically omitted and the Act was not made applicable in respect of the dwelling house. Section 190 of Railways Act, 1989 applies only to the office premises and office property and the powers under the new Act have been given to a Magistrate only in respect of the office premises and the office property etc, in view of the exigencies of obtaining these premises immediately. The exclusion of dwelling houses was for the benefit of railway employees only and not for the benefit of Railways. Had the Railways Act of 1989 been applied, a Judicial Magistrate would have straightway taken possession of the dwelling unit throwing out the petitioner and his family. The petitioner had not raised this issue before the Estate Officer and took benefit of continued proceedings for almost three years. Now the petitioner is pleading applicability of the Railways Act on the premises. I consider that this plea of the petitioner must fail. 5. I find no force in this petition. The petition is hereby dismissed. No orders as to costs.