Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1454 (RAJ)

Rajesh Wadhwa v. RIICO

2015-08-04

BELA M.TRIVEDI

body2015
ORDER 1. All the petitions involve similar issues in respect of the validity of the show cause notices issued by the respondent No.2-Estate Officer to the respective petitioners under the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). Therefore all the petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. For the sake of convenience the facts of SBCWP No. 7227/15 are narrated. The petitioner of the said petition has challenged the legality and validity of the notice dated 17.4.15 (Annex.11) issued by the respondent No.2 under Section 4(1) of the said Act, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be dispossessed from the Unit No.1 situated at the Cluster No.1 of the Jem Park, RIICO, the petitioner being an unauthorised occupant of the said unit which is a public premises within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the said Act. The respondent No.1 has filed reply raising preliminary objections as regards the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the proceedings in respect of the petitioner's unit under the said Act are pending with the respondent No.2 and the petition is filed at the premature stage. The petition has been resisted on merits as well. The petitioner has filed the rejoinder to the said reply. 3. It has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Rajeev Surana for the petitioner that the impugned notice issued by the respondent No.2 is in complete violation of Section 4 of the said Act, in asmuch as the said notice does not specify the grounds, on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made under the said Act. Relying upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court in case of Damodar Narayana Naik Gardikar Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. AIR 1995 Karnataka 225, he submitted that the very foundation of the notice being illegal and in violation of the specific provision of the Statute, the respondent No.2 has no authority to proceed further with the proceedings under the said Act. Taking the court to the language of the said notice, Mr. Surana has submitted that the said notice is premeditated and that no purpose would be served by replying to the said notice or appearing before the respondent No.2. Taking the court to the language of the said notice, Mr. Surana has submitted that the said notice is premeditated and that no purpose would be served by replying to the said notice or appearing before the respondent No.2. In this regard, he has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Siemens Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2006) 12 SCC 33 , in which it has been held interalia that when a notice is issued with premeditation a writ petition would be maintainable. Mr. Surana had also sought to argue on the merits of the petition, however the learned counsel Mr. Ajeet Bhandari for the respondent No.1 having raised the preliminary objection against the maintainability of the petition, Mr. Surana was requested to confine his arguments on the said preliminary objections only. 4. The learned counsel Mr. Ajeet Bhandari for the respondent No.1, placing heavy reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs. India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr. in LPA No. 788/12 decided on 29.4.13 and the order passed by the Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 27110/13 decided on 13.9.13, arising out of the said case, submitted that the petitioner having moved this court at the stage of show cause notice, the petition is premature. He also submitted that the issue of jurisdiction can be raised before the Estate Officer as observed by the Apex Court in the said case. 5. After having heard the learned counsels for the parties, and considering the provisions contained in the said Act, more particularly Section 4, it transpires that the respondent No.2 has issued the notice (Annex.11) calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be dispossessed from the unit in question, he being an unauthorised occupant of the same. It is submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Bhandari, and is not disputed by Mr Surana, that the petitioner has already filed reply to the said notice to the respondent No.2 and the proceedings under the said Act are pending before the respondent No.2. It is submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Bhandari, and is not disputed by Mr Surana, that the petitioner has already filed reply to the said notice to the respondent No.2 and the proceedings under the said Act are pending before the respondent No.2. Though the court finds substance in the submission made by the learned counsel Mr Surana for the petitioner, that the said show cause notice does not specify the grounds as contemplated in Section 4 of the said Act, the court is not inclined to interfere at this stage, considering the legal position settled by the Apex Court in various decisions to the effect that the High Court normally should not interfere at the stage of shown cause notice. Mere issuance of show cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of the party. A beneficial reference of the decision of the Apex Court in this regard may be made, in the case of Union of India Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana AIR 2007 SC 906. 6. At this juncture, a very pertinent observations made by the Delhi High Court in case of Maruti Suzuki (supra) with regard to the preliminary issues of jurisdiction and legality of the show cause notice may be reproduced as under:- "9. The challenge in the writ petition is to a notice under Section 4 of the PP Act. The respondent No.2 Estate Officer is still seized of the matter. The Supreme Court as far as back in Cooper Engineering Limited v. P.P. Mundhe (1975) 2 SCC 661 held that there is no justification for a party to stall the final adjudication of the dispute, in that case referred to the Industrial Adjudicator, by questioning the decision on preliminary issues before the High Court. Yet again in S.K. Verma Vs. Mahesh Chandra (1983) 4 SCC 214 , practice of raising preliminary issues/objections to delay and defeat adjudication on merits was deprecated/disapproved of. Similarly in D.P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration (1983) 4 SCC 293 also it was held that all issues whether preliminary or otherwise should be decided together so as to rule out the possibility of any litigation at the interlocutory stage. Similarly in D.P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration (1983) 4 SCC 293 also it was held that all issues whether preliminary or otherwise should be decided together so as to rule out the possibility of any litigation at the interlocutory stage. The Supreme Court yet again in National Council for Cement and Building Materials v. State of Haryana (1996) 3 SCC 206 noticed the appalling situation created due to challenge to the decision on such preliminary issues in the High Court and during which time the reference is stayed and lies dormant and held that the High Court should refuse to intervene in the proceedings pending before the Industrial Adjudicator at an interlocutory stage. 10. The ratio of the aforesaid judgments would apply to the factual situation before us also, as the appellant, instead of contesting the notice issued under the PP Act before the respondent No.2 Estate Officer, has rushed to this Court, thereby stalling the proceedings before the respondent NO.2 Estate Officer. 11. The challenge by the appellant has to be viewed in this light and all challenges which are maintainable before the Estate Officer cannot be subject matter of challenge at the threshold." 7. The said decision of the Delhi High Court has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 27110/13, in which it has been observed as under :- "Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner at length. In our opinion, the petitioner has moved this Court at a rather premature stage. The petitioner is at liberty to appear before the Estate Officer and raise the issue of jurisdiction. If such a plea is raised, the Estate Officer shall consider the same as a preliminary issue. Let the preliminary issued be decided within a period of two months of the plea being taken. The special leave petition is dismissed." 8. In view of the aforestated legal position, the court is of the opinion that the petitioner has approached this court at a premature stage and that the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all the issues including the issues of jurisdiction in the proceedings pending before the respondent No.2. 9. Though it was cursorily argued by the learned counsel Mr. 9. Though it was cursorily argued by the learned counsel Mr. Surana for the petitioners that the respondent No.2 has issued the impugned notice with premeditation, the court does not find any substance in the said submission, more particularly when there is no specific allegation made by the petitioner in this regard in the petition. 10. In that view of the matter, the court is not inclined to entertain the petition, at the stage of show cause notice. It is needless to say that the respondent No.2 shall decide all the issues that may be raised by the petitioner in the proceedings pending before him, in accordance with law. The petition is dismissed accordingly. 11. The other petitions also stand dismissed in the light of the aforestated observations. By this order, stay applications in all the petitions also stand dismissed. A copy of this order be placed in other connected writ petitions.