1 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3953 OF 2009 Union of India & Anr. : Petitioners versus Ajay Vijayvargiya : Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Petitioners Mr.A V Anturkar a/w Mr. G S Walia for the Respondent. CORAM : S B MHASE & R M SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 12th October 2009 P.C. 1. This Petition takes exception to the order dated 8.12.2008 passed in Original Application No.473 of 2008 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai. The said Original Application No.473 of 2008 filed by the Respondent herein impunging the order dated 2.11.2008 passed by the Petitioners herein directing the Respondent to vacate the quarter failing which to pay damage rent with effect from 24.09.2007. 2. The respondent was at the relevant time working as the Chief Signal and Telecom Engineer and was transferred to Railway Staff College, Vadodara as Faculty Member vide order dated 13.9.2005 to train and teach the Railway Officers. The Respondent obeyed the said transfer 2 order but applied for retention of the railway quarter in his possession at Mumbai for a period of two years. The said request was considered by the Petitioners herein and the Respondent was allowed to occupy the said quarter from 24.9.2005 till 23.09.2007 on payment of normal licence fee. 3. It appears that prior to expiry of the said period of two years, the Respondent made a request on 21.9.2007 for further retention of the said quarter on the ground that his daughter was studying in XIIth standard and his wife was suffering from some serious gyneacological problem and was required to be treated in Mumbai. It would also be pertinent to note that the Respondent was also transferred back to Mumbai as Chief Signal and Telecom Engineer vide order dated 7.11.2007. 4. It is contended on behalf of the Respondent in the said Original Application No.473 of 2008 i.e. the Petitioners herein that the impugned order which is in the nature of administrative order asking the Respondent herein to vacate the quarter in question and to pay penal damages was unsustainable. The Petitioners herein sought to justify their action that beyond the period in respect of which permission was granted, the Respondent could not retain the said quarter. The Petitioners herein sought to place reliance on the various circulars and 3 guide lines issued by the Railway Board 16.3.2004, 1.9.2005, 17.10.2004 and 26.3.2008. 5. The learned Tribunal on considering the conspectus of facts as mentioned herein above came to a conclusion that since the Petitioners herein had permitted the Respondent to occupy the quarter in question till 23.9.2007 i.e. for a period of about two years, the dispute in question was only relating to the period from 24.9.2007 till 2.11.2007 i.e. for a period of one month and ten days. The learned tribunal also considered the fact that the Respondent was in occupation of the said quarter till 23.9.2007 and whilst the Application for further extension on the ground stated above was pending before the Petitioners herein, the impugned order came to be passed thereby asking the Respondent to vacate the quarter in question and to pay the penal damages. The tribunal was of the view that since the said impugned order was passed without giving an opportunity to the Respondent, the said order was in breach of the principles of natural justice. The tribunal also considered the fact that the Respondent was a Senior Faculty Member and was holding the post of Chief Signal and Telecom Engineer and did not deserve to receive the treatment which was sought to be meted out to him by the Petitioners herein. 4 6. In our view, the reasons cited by the tribunal are unexceptionable. We are aghast at the manner in which a person who was sent as a member to a training institute is sought to be treated by the Petitioners, in our view, the same would not be conducive to the imparting of proper training to the officers who are sought to be trained in the said training institute. In any event as indicated above the dispute is only in respect of a period of one month and eleven days for which nominal licence fee as was charged for the earlier period between 24.9.2005 till 23.9.2007 can be charged. 7. Reliance was sought to be placed by the learned counsel for the Petitioners on the Rules for Allotment of Residential Accommodation to Officers in Mumbai Area w.e.f 6.5.2003 to buttress the submission that the Respondent would have to stand in queue on his re-transfer to Mumbai. The said submission, in our view, is only stated to be rejected as admittedly the Respondent has been in occupation of the quarter in question right from the year 2005 till this date. In any event, considering the facts as mentioned above, we do not find this is a fit case to exercise our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The above Petition is accordingly rejected. [R.M.SAVANT, J] [S.B.MHASE, J]