Delhi District Court
All India Cpwd Employees Union vs The Director General on 29 July, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. R.K. GAUBA: DISTRICT &
SESSIONS JUDGE (SOUTH), SAKET: NEW DELHI
PPA No. : 02/2013
ID No.: 02406C0001032013
All India CPWD Employees Union,
through the General Secretary
Sh. Vinod Kumar s/o Sh. Shiv Narain Garg,
Resident of E2/1/27, Sector15,
Rohini, Delhi89. ... Appellant
Versus
The Director General, CPWD,
Office of the Directorate General,
Government of India,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. ... Respondent
Instituted on: 04.01.2013
Judgment reserved on: 29.07.2013
Judgment pronounced on: 29.07.2013.
J U D G M E N T
1. This appeal under Section 9 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Public Premises Act") was preferred on 02.01.2013, challenging the validity of order dated 20.12.2012 passed by the Estate Officer PPA No. 02/2013 All India CPWD Employees Union Vs. The Director General CPWD Page 1 of 8 directing the appellant to vacate the premises described as space in the office of Lodhi Colony Service Centre, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi, a building under the control of Central Public Works Department (CPWD) (hereinafter referred to as the public premises) within 15 days of the date of publication of the said order and in the event of refusal or failure to comply with the said directions within the period specified to face forcible eviction.
2. On notice, respondent appeared to contest the appeal through a detailed reply filed on 28.02.2013. A copy of the record of proceedings of Estate Officer has also been submitted pursuant to directions in the order dated 28.02.2013.
3. I have heard Sh. R. K. Kapoor, advocate for the appellant and Sh. Priya Ranjan Roi, advocate for the respondent. I have gone through the record.
4. The available record indicates that pursuant to communication issued by Deputy Director of Administration on behalf of Engineer inChief of CPWD issued on 25.06.1971, the public premises described in the relevant paper as "one room" [then occupied by Junior Engineer (Electrical) in Lodhi Colony inquiry office] was allotted to CPWD Employees Union for its official activities. The appellant Union claims to be successorinoffice of the said CPWD PPA No. 02/2013 All India CPWD Employees Union Vs. The Director General CPWD Page 2 of 8 Employees Union, though its nomenclature being slightly different.
5. It appears further from the documents filed by the appellant itself on record that the question of the appellant requiring recognition arose sometime in 2008. The material on record indicates that Central Civil Services (RSA) Rules, 1993 were notified by the Department of Personnel & Training (DOP&T) of the Government of India in the wake of which, as per the submissions of the respondent, all the workers unions representing workcharged staff of CPWD were called upon to apply for recognition under the said rules. It has been submitted by the counsel for the appellant that after the said Rules of 1993, had been brought into force, a communication was addressed to the appellant Union as well requiring it to take necessary steps to get itself recognised/registered. The counsel further submitted that the said notice was challenged by the appellant union through WP(C) No. 4915/2008 before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. It appears the said writ petition is still pending though it was dismissed for non prosecution on 26.07.2012, it having been restored to its original number vide order dated 03.09.2012, next known date of hearing presently within the knowledge of both sides being 18.02.2013.
6. Be that as it may, on being asked, the counsel for the appellant fairly PPA No. 02/2013 All India CPWD Employees Union Vs. The Director General CPWD Page 3 of 8 conceded that there is no interim relief or protection granted in favour of the Union by the Hon'ble High Court in the proceedings arising out of the said writ petition.
7. It appears further that the precise place where the building in question was located (which houses the public premises) was required by New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) to build a 30 KV Electrical SubStation for energizing 300 newly constructed TypeII Quarters at Aliganj, Lodhi Colony, under the control of CPWD. It appears further that for making the said space available for such purposes demolition action of the superstructure came to be initiated. This action was challenged by the appellant Union through WP(C) 7407/2012 before the Hon'ble High Court. The said writ petition was decided vide order dated 10.12.2012. As pointed out by the counsel for the respondent, in the said writ petition, certain facts were found to have been glossed over by the appellant union, particularly one respecting the issue of recognition of the appellant Union which is still subject matter of the WP(C) no. 4915/2008 in which regard there is no interim relief granted in favour of the appellant union.
8. Be that as it may, Hon'ble High Court directed that in the circumstances wherein the appellant Union had been in occupation PPA No. 02/2013 All India CPWD Employees Union Vs. The Director General CPWD Page 4 of 8 since 1971, before the demolition action could be undertaken, a show cause notice was necessary. Time bound directions for show cause notice and reply were given with further directions for the concerned officer to adjudicate upon the said matter and granting protection against demolition till such decision was taken.
9. In the wake of the said directions in the order dated of Hon'ble High Court, show cause notice under Section 4 of the Public Premises Act was issued by the Estate Officer on 10.12.2012. A copy of the said show cause notice (placed at Page 35 of the paper book) indicates that the ground on which such eviction was proposed was essentially that under the CCS (RSA) Rules, 1993 the appellant Union has become unrecognised and, therefore, it required to be directed to vacate the premises.
10.The show cause notice was responded to by the appellant through reply dated 17.12.2012 in which a number of contentions were raised, mainly to the effect that the allotment of the public premises was a matter not connected with it being a recognised union. The appellant claimed that no notice regarding recognition or unauthorised occupation of the premises has ever been given by the department and that there had been correspondence exchanged for alternative accommodation to be allotted. The appellant Union also PPA No. 02/2013 All India CPWD Employees Union Vs. The Director General CPWD Page 5 of 8 claimed that it has not violated any condition of the terms of allotment and had also paid the requisite charges upto 31.12.2012.
11.The Estate Officer considered the reply to the show cause notice and, thereafter, passed the order dated 20.12.2012, taking note of the fact that the appellant union had not submitted any proof to indicate that it was a recognised entity. On this basis, the eviction order was issued requiring the public premises to be vacated.
12.The appellant's main contention in this appeal is that rules of natural justice have not been followed as no opportunity for leading the evidence has been given nor any opportunity has been given for crossexamination of the witnesses of opposite party. In this regard, reliance has been placed on New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nusli Neville Wadia & anr. [(2008)3 SCC 279]. The counsel further placed reliance on Shree Damodar Kalvaibhav Education Society Vs. Directorate of Education, Goa & anr. [(200) 7 SCC 194] to contend that it was incumbent on the part of the Estate Officer to adjudicate upon all the contentions raised in the reply to the show cause notice and since this exercise had not been done, the impugned order is vitiated.
13.I have given my considered thoughts to the relevant contentions PPA No. 02/2013 All India CPWD Employees Union Vs. The Director General CPWD Page 6 of 8 urged before me but find no substance in the appeal.
14. The sole ground on which show cause notice was issued was the fact that the appellant Union is a recognised worker's Union. It may be that when the allotment of the public premises was made in 1971, there was no condition of the allottee being a recognised Union. But then, it has to be remembered that an allotment of Government accommodation is made under the allotment rules to an individual/entity who is entitled for the same. The CCS (RSA) Rules, 1993 supervened the arrangement and the entity which may have been entertained for purposes of being given a government accommodation for its Union activities was obliged under the said Rules to get itself registered and recognised. The requirement of the appellant Union to get itself registered/recognized was challenged before Hon'ble High Court in 2008. But, till date not even an interim relief has been granted in its favour.
15.In these circumstances, the basic facts which required to be set out in the response to the show cause notice were to remain focused on the question of recognition. All the other contentions raised were not germane to the issue that required to be resolved by the Estate Officer. The fact that the appellant did not even claim that it had due recognition or was duly registered under the relevant rules PPA No. 02/2013 All India CPWD Employees Union Vs. The Director General CPWD Page 7 of 8 closed the chapter as far as the Estate Officer was concerned. There is no law requiring him to inquire into issues which are extraneous and on which no right to continue in occupation could be rested. It may be added here that, as in the writ petition leading to the order dated 10.12.2012, even in the reply to the show cause notice, the appellant Union was not very truthful when it claimed that no notice regarding recognition had been given by the Department till date. This was against the very admitted fact about such communication having been received and which had been challenged through WP(C)4915/2008.
16.In above facts and circumstances, the appeal at hand is devoid of merits and is dismissed.
17.A copy of the judgment be sent to Estate Officer through official channel.
18.The file of the appeal be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court today (R.K. GAUBA)
on this 29th day of July, 2013 District & Sessions Judge
(South) Saket/New Delhi
PPA No. 02/2013 All India CPWD Employees Union Vs. The Director General CPWD Page 8 of 8