Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 358 (JHR)

Amrit Soreng v. Union of India

2013-03-08

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2013
ORDER By the Court.-Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for two prayers :- (i) for directing the respondent to allot B-Type of Quarters, as according to the petitioner, he was already in occupation of B-Type Quarter at the time of his retirement in the year 2010, in terms of the circular issued by the Steel Authority of India Ltd. under SAIL Scheme for leasing of houses to employees, 2001 and. (ii) the petitioner has also challenged the communication dated 5.12.2011 issued under the provisions of Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant Act, 1971. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier B-Type Quarters were not available for the allotment and subsequently by amendment by the Steel Authority of India Ltd. itself under the Scheme of 2001, such B-Type Quarters have also been made available for allotment or retaining by the employees and ex-employees of the Bokaro Steel Plant on long term lease basis. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the said SAIL Scheme, 2001 and its amendments are being followed in other Unit of Steel Authority of India Ltd, but respondent No. 3, Bokaro Steel Ltd. cannot make exception to that. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the writ petition does not contain any representation made on behalf of the petitioner for seeking such a direction upon the respondents, therefore, he cannot claim for issuance for writ of mandamus upon the respondents in absence of the same. He further submits that the petitioner has come before this Court against a preliminary show-cause notice even before actual proceedings under the provisions of Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant Act, 1971 have been started. The petitioner is obliged to show-cause by appearing before the appropriate. Competent Authority/Estate Officer that he is not in unauthorized occupation whereafter the Estate Officer may take a proper decision in accordance with law and. as such; this Court should not interfere at this stage on issuance of a preliminary, snow-cause notice. 6. Learned counsel, for the respondents, further, submits that under the, earlier Scheme issued by the respondent-BSL itself, the Quarters being C/D/E/F and EF were opened for allotment on lease to the employees who were entitled to the same. 7. as such; this Court should not interfere at this stage on issuance of a preliminary, snow-cause notice. 6. Learned counsel, for the respondents, further, submits that under the, earlier Scheme issued by the respondent-BSL itself, the Quarters being C/D/E/F and EF were opened for allotment on lease to the employees who were entitled to the same. 7. Be that as it may; it appears that the petitioner has not approached respondent authorities in the first place before coming to this Court for seeking direction or writ of mandamus to act in a particular manner. Moreover, only preliminary show-cause notice has been issued by the competent authority which the petitioner has assailed straightaway in the writ petition. In these circumstances this Court in its discretionary jurisdiction does not consider it proper to interfere at this stage. 8. The petitioner is allowed to approach respondent authorities by making a proper representation with all supporting facts and documents showing his entitlement to the allotment of Quarters in question. On receipt of such representation the competent authority under' the respondents Bokaro Steel Ltd. shall consider the same on the basis of the said SAIL Scheme, 2001 in vogue which applies to the petitioner's case, if he is found eligible for such entitlement and pass a speaking and reasoned order in respect of his claim within a period of six weeks thereafter which shall be communicated to the petitioner. 9. On the other hand the petitioner is required to file response to the preliminary show-cause notice issued by the Competent Authority/Estate Officer under the Act of 1971 and this Court, therefore does not consider it proper to express anything in respect of same. 10. Accordingly, this, writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 11. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case. Petition disposed of.