Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Mahesh Chandra Aged About 31 Years Son ... vs Union Of India Through General Manager on 10 July, 2012
OPEN COURT CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD (THIS THE 10th DAY OF JULY, 2012) PRESENT: HONBLE MR. D. C. LAKHA, MEMBER-A HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER-J ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 912 OF 2012 (U/s, 19 Administrative Tribunal Act.1985) Mahesh Chandra aged about 31 years son late Har Pal Singh resident of L-46A (Type-II) down Railway Colony, Dehradoon. . . . . . . . .Applicant By Advocate: Shri T.S. Pandey. Versus 1. Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi. 2. Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Moradabad Division, Moradabad. 3. Senior Section Engineer (Works) Dehradoon, Moradabad Division, Moradabad. 4. Senior Section Engineer (Electric) Dehradoon, Moradabad Division, Moradabad. 5. Sri D.S. Rawat, Senior Section Engineer (Works) Rurki, Northern Railway, Moradabad Division, Moradabad. . . . . . . . . . Respondents By Advocate: Shri Anil Kumar. O R D E R
(DELIVERED BY: HONBLE MR. D.C. LAKHA - MEMBER-A) Heard Sri T.S. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This is a fresh matter which can be adjudicated by the Single Member Bench but on mention of the applicants counsel, looking to the urgency of the matter, as a special case for the judicial intervention, the matter is taken up in the Division Bench today. Mr. T.S. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the order dated 02nd July, 2012 (impugned) passed by the Respondent No. 3 with respect to the Quarter No. L-46A (TYPE I) Down Dehradoon allotted in favour of the applicant vide order dated 27th June, 2012. In support of the averments in the OA the counsel has alleged that the impugned order is not passed by the competent authority because the Quarter in question belongs to the pool under Respondent No. 4 whereas the order has been passed by the Respondent No. 3. It has also been alleged that the notice for 3 days has been given to vacate this Quarter failing which the same shall be got vacated by force. The contention of the Advocate is that this order including the notice to vacate the quarter seems to have been passed as per the provisions of Section 4 (2) (b) (i) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Un-authorized occupants) Act 1971. If so, the notice is not issued in conformity with Section 4 (2) (b) (i) providing for 7 days notice for vacation of unauthorizedly occupied accomodation. This is also in contravention of the Section (5) (2) because the order/notice has not been issued by the State Officer which, as per the facts of the case, is supposed to be Respondent No. 4. Accordingly, the impugned order is illegal and unsustainable and should be quashed.
3. In reply, the counsel for the respondents has stated that this is a case for better accommodation because the applicant was already allotted Quarter No. L-18K Type I, and he wanted to get it changed to L-46A i.e. the Quarter in question in the impugned notice. He has also stated that this Quarter does not belong to the pool of Respondent No. 4 because the transfer of this Quarter to Respondent No. 4 has not reached finality as in lieu of this Quarter some other Quarter was to be handed over to the pool of Respondent No. 4 which has not been done so far. Only then the right would accrue to the Respondent No. 3 to make allotment of this quarter. He has also stated that about the rest of the points averred in the OA he would like to seek the instructions form the respondents to make submission if time is allowed.
4. As the facts stand before us and after hearing both the counsels, it is apparent that after issuing the order/notice dated 02.07.2012 the applicant is yet to put up the reply. Hence the order with respect to dispossession of the Quarter in question by the applicant is not final. So, we deem it just and proper to direct the applicant to give reply in response to the notice/order to the competent authority/respondent and explain the total situation. On receipt of the reply of the applicant the competent authority i.e. Respondent No. 3 shall look into this matter with respect to the reply and pass reasoned and speaking order as per rules and law within a period of 4 weeks. Until the disposal of the matter with respect to the reply the applicant shall not be dispossed from the Quarter No. L-46A (TYPE I). While deciding this matter OA shall also be treated as part of the reply on behalf of the applicant. The applicant/counsel is directed to provide the copy of the OA along with the Annexures to the Respondent No. 3 within a week. The time to decide this matter by the respondent No. 3 shall be reckoned from the date the copy of the OA is received by him.
5. In view of the above observation this OA stands disposed of at the admission stage.
Copy of the order be given to the parties counsel.
MEMBER (J) MEMBER (A)
/SV/
??
??
??
??
4