l2- *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Writ Petition (Civil) No. L l4B9l2OOg & cM NO. 1124412009 Date of decision : November 30, 2O1-O B.L. RAINA ... Petitioner Through: Mr. B. L. WaIi, Advocate VERSUS ESTATE OFFICER ....ResPondents Through: Mr. Jatan Singh with Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal and Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL L. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? GITA MITTAL. T For orders see W.P.(C) No. 1523912004. [Jil^ry/- rtGrrA Mr?rAL) / JUDGE November 3O, 20L0 kr Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified /E, *xN. T'n-rE xlilc'f{ co{JRT oF' DElLFln AT' NTEW DEn n"nti Date of' decision: Novemrmeq$,6*0, P.I(. KOUL ... PeLitioner Thlough: Mr. B. L. Wali, Advocate VERSUS ESTATE OFFICER AND ANR. '....Responc1en[s . Through: Mr. Jatan Singh with Mr'. Abhisheh Aggarwal and Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates. AND (2) Writ Fetition (Civil) No. 15240/2CI04 ancl CM No. tr_L013/2OO4 T.K. OGRA ... petiLioner Through: Mr. B. L. Wali, Advoca[e VERSUS ESl'AT,tr OtrFICER AND ANR. ....Resirondents' Through: Mr, Jatan Singh wi[h Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal and Ms. Megha . Bharara, Advocates. (3) Writ Fetition (Aivit) No. tr_52 4SlOq ancl CIW No. tl0Z6/2OAq A.K. MUKOO .. pe[itioner- Through: . Mr. B.L. Wali, AclvocaLe VERSUS ESTAT'E OFtrICEIlAND ORS. ....Itesponclen[s Through: Mr. Jatan Singh.with Mr. Al:hishelc Aggarwal ancl Ms. Megha tsharara, Advocates. W.P.(C) No.75239/2004 Page I of t5Z lL4 tlt AND (4) Wri[ Fetition (Civil) No. 15246/2004 ancl ClvI No. tr-L029n444 M.L.DULLU ... Petitioner Through: Mr. B.L. Wali, AdvocaLe VERSUS ESTAIE OFtrICER AND ANR. ...Respondent s Through: Mr. Jatan Singh wi[h Mr. Abhishelc Aggarwai and Ms. Megha Bharara, Aclvocates. AND (5) Writ tretition (Civil) No. 862/2004 and CM No. 736/2006 A.K, TzuSAL ... pebitioner Through: Mr. Manoj V. George, Advocate VERSUS ESTATE OFFICER AND ANR. ...Respondenr.s . Through: Mr. Jatan Singh with Mr. Abhishel< Aggaqwal and Ms. M'egha Bharara, Advocates. AND (6) Writ Fetition (Civil)'No. n SZ4j-,,ZAAL and CM No. tr L016/2004 T.S. BALI ... pe[itioner Through: Mr. B. L. Wali, Advocate VERSUS , ES"|ATII OFFICERAND ANR. ....Responclents Through: Mr. Jatan Singh wiLh Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal ancl Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates. AND ' (7) Writ Fetition (Civit) No. nSZLqf,lAOq and CM No. ttrO&4nDDq P'N' KACI{R'' Tirro'grr: Mr. B. L. w;ii,n;;1:t"Jil: W.p'.(C) Uo.tSZZgtZOOq , page 2 of t57 , Iln:ffi^#;,Hit"Tif;lfi*H Bharara, Advocates. AND (S) Writ tretition (Civil) No. n 5279/2004 ancl CM No. 11-050/2004 C.L,MISRI Petitioner Through: 'Mr. B. L. Wali, Advocate VERSUS ESTA|E OITFICER AND ANR. ....Responclen[s Through: Mr. Jatan Singh wi[h Mr. ' Abhisheh Aggarwal ancl Ms. Megha ' Bharara, Advocates.' . (9) Writ tretition (Civil) No. 15698/2004 aircl CM No. I-tr 04412004 PHOOL/\ RAINA ... peritioner (Wife of late' Str.f.N.naina) Through: Mr. B. L. Wali, Advocate VERSUS ,ESTATE OFI]ICER AND ANB. VERSUS ESTATE OFITICER AND ANR. . TEJ KISHAN UOI & ANR. ....Responden.l,s .. . . Respondenl,s . Through: Mr. JaLan Singh with Mr. Abhishelc Aggarwal ancl Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates. AND (10) Wqit Fetition (Aivil) No. X-77912004 and CM No. 1b57,2AA6 rlrrousrr: Mr. sarnrat r<. Nisa,I:NHlt:Ir" VERSUS ....Responden[s ' Through: Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, Advocaie W.P.(C) No.75239/2004 Page S .of 157 A.ND (11) WriL Fetitfron (Civil) No. 2641/2006 & cMr No. 2379/2006 S.N.]IHAT ... petiLioner Through: Mr. Manoj V. George, AdvocaLe ' VERSUS uol AND ANR. ....ResponclenLs Through: Mr. Jatan Singh with Mr. Abhisheh Aggarwal and Ms. Megha Bharara, AdvocaLes. . ANE (12) Writ Feririon (AiviX) No. 568 IJZWAT and CM No.. lLOb 47 ?UAT M.I( TIKOO ... petitioner Through: Mr. R.K. Hancloo with Mr. Yoginder l-Iandoo and Mr. Manish shulda & Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocates VERSUS uol AND ANR' rhrousrr: iur. n. v. si'ha *iiirff::ff;"tt Singh, Advocates. (n3) Wnir; trerirf,on (Civit) No. 705 7 ,?:AOT arrd CM No. l34Zn,nAAq C.L. RAINA ... peLitioner Through' M1. Thakur Summi[, Aclvocate VERSUS uol AND ANR. ....Respondenbs Through: Mr. R. V. Sinha with ivlr. A.S. Singh, Advocates. W.P.(C) No.I52J9/2004 Page 4 of 157 tY- . AND (n4) Writ Fetition (Civil) No. 2869/2008 . and CM No. 5540/2008 S.N. KAUL ..' Petibioner I Through: Mr. R.K. I-Iandoo with.Mr. Yoginder Handoo and Mr. Manish ' Shukla & Mr. Atul Shartna, Advocates ;'}ff'tf iff:i" Singh, Advocates. AND ' (15) Writ'lPetition (Aivil) No. 8599/2008 and CM No. L6497/2008 KANTiAYANI GANJoo ... petitioner Throughr Mr. R.K. Flandoo with Mr. Yoginder Handoo and Mr. Manish Shulda & Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocates VERSUS UOi AND ANR. ....Respondents Through: Mr. R. V. Sinha wiLh Mr. A.S. Singh,Advocates. A.ND (16) Writ tretition (Aivit) No. 8600/2009 and Civn No., L6499/200S I-I.L. KOUL petitioner Through: Mr. R.I(. I{andoo with Mr". Yoginder Handoo and Mr. Manish Sllukla & Mr. Atul Sharma, Aclvoca[es VERSUS UOI AND ANR. ....Respondents Through: Mr. R. V. Sinha with Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocabes. W.P.(C) No.75239/2004 Page 5 of 157 tK AND (17) Writ tretition (Civil) No. 8601/2008 cM NO.. 16501-/2008 VIJAY MAM, UOI AND ANR. P.L. KAUL UOI AND ANR. Y.S. JAMWAL UOI AND ANR. ... Petitioner Through: Mr. R.I( Handoo wi[h Mr. Yoginder l{andoo and Mr. Manish Shukla.& Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocates VERSUS rrrroush: Mr. R. v s;i;l*iittf;iff:i:t Singh, Advocates. . AND rl (18) Writ Fetition (Civil) No. 864L/2009 and CM No. 5796/2009 ,.. Pe[itioner Through: Mr. Samra[ I(. Nigarn, Advocate VERSUS ...Respondents Through: Mr'. R. V. Sinha with M::. A.S. Singh, Advocates. : AND (19) Wnit Fetition (Aivil) No. gGOg/2O09 & cM NO. 7654/2009 ... PeLitioner Through: .Mr. Naresh Thanai, Advocabe VERSUS rtrroush: Mr. R v. rt*ff:rffiff]t" Singh, Advocates. AND (20) Writ Feririon (Civil) No. 1 1"877 lZAOE ,!. 8r n 0986/2009 M.K. BAZAZ ... petitioner ' Through.: Mr. R.I( Flancloo with Mr. Yoginder Handoo and Mr. Manish . Shulda & Mr. Abul Sharma, Advocates Page 6 of 157 W.P.(C) No.75239/2004 t1 .VERSUS ....ResPonden[s uol AND ANR' Through: ' Mr' Ja[an si'gir with Mr' . Abhisheh Aggarwal and Ms' Megha Bharara, Advocates. AND (21) Wnit Fetition (Aivil) No. 1154S/2009 & ciu No. n 135n/2009 B.L. TAI(AROO .. Petitioner Through: Mr. Manoj V. George, Advocate VERSUS . UOI AND ANR. ...ResPonden[s Through: Mr. Jatan Singh with Mr. AbhishekAggarwal ancl Ms. Megha i ' Bh;;;;;; Actvocates. t' (22) Writ tretition (CivA[) No. X.3-488/2009 & cM NO. LX.24212A0.g ... Petitioner MOTILAL I(AUL Through: Mr. B. L. Wali, Advocate VERSUS ESTATE OFFICE& DIRECTORATE OF ESTATES, NII.MAN BHAWAN rhroush: Mr. Jaran r*ttil,,ilt,1?1" Abhishek Aggarwal and Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates. AND (23) Writ Fetition (Civil),No. 114S9/2009 & cM NO. XrZ 44t2AAs ' IJ.L. RAINA ... petitioner T'hrough: Mr. Il. L. Wali, Aclvocate VERSUS ESTATE OFFICER ....Responclents Through: Mr. Jqtan Singll wiLh Mr. Al:hishek Aggarwal and Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates. W.P.(C) No.75239/2004 -11[-'--' '-*----' r--- -- Page 7 of '157 AND (2+1Writ tretition (C) No. n-lL49O/2009 & C.Mo.No.ln-246/2009 A.K. GIGOO ... Peti[ioner Through: Mr. B. L. Wali, Advoca[e VERSUS ....Responden[s Through: Mr. Jatan Singh with Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal and Ms. Megha . Bharara, Advocates. ESTAIE OtrFICER COHAM: FIObil',tEn E MS. JIJST'ICE GITA MIIIT'A]L L. Whether reporLers of local papers may be allowecl to see Lhe Judgrnent? . 2. To be referr:ed to the Reporter or not?. 3. Whether the judgrnent should be repor[ed in [he Digest? @ L. The insl.anl. case is a testimony to events which leacl Lo an unprececlen.becl ethnic cleansing of a minority colnmunity from bire l(ashmir valley on account'of the inability of [he S[aLe to protect them and their property from violence, who, as a resrill;, wer:e reirderecl homeless. such turrnoil was facecl by l.he minori[y colt]trunity in the state of Jammu 6{ Kashrnir afLcr Decernber, L9Bg, cornpelling its members to flee horne, hear[h and StaLe for bare survival. Thesc writ petil"ions have been filed by sorrre of suc;h displaced persons who were central Governrnen[ ernployees seeking protection against forcible eviction of [he quarters occupied by Lhern on Lhe ground that it is the only roof available to thern. 'l W.P.(C) No.75239/2004 I tlI I ! I\I X fq+ I/ IIt Page 8 of 157 al 2. 'I-he pctitioners contencl that tirose represenl,ing tlie Central Government in the Kashrnir valley, especialiy [hose -who were rellresenting the intelligence agencies, paLa rnilitary and clefence forces as.well as ilre GovernrnerrI media becarne 1:rime Largets of the militants to bhe extent bhat lisLs of such person"s who haci l,o be targetecl were published ancl circulated in the localities. Farnily rnernbers and friends of such Governrnenl, empJ.oyees were hilled and their properties destroyed for [h,e nessage to permea[e. As a result, imrnedia[e s[eirs for evacuabion of such officials on ernergency'basis were talcen Jry the Governrnen[ of India in order to at least protect Lheir lives. 3. The writ pe[itioners in W.P.(C) Nos. 5681/20Q7, 2869, 8599, 8600. 8601/2008. L1377/2009. 15239, 1_5240, 15245 L5246,862. L524'1,L5264.Lsn 264'112006; ' 705712007, 864t,' 9609 1,L548, LL4BB LI48g 11490 6i 11491i2009 were shifted from Jamrnu & I(ashmir l,o Delhi ancl posLecl in the local offices of the central organization ancl clepartmen[. where [hey were employecl. 4. The facts disclose that all the petitioners (or the llerson on whonr l,hey were clepenclant as in the case of Srn[. phoo]a Raina widow of Late Sh. T.N. Raina writ. petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 15698/2004) upon being brought to Delhi were allot[ecl Government accornmoda[ion to reside'in, not only by virtue of their ernployment bub also their extrerne neecl for shelter. These allotLees of Lhe quarl.ers, superannuatecl frorn service orl ctifferenb clates over the periocJ of tirne. 5. w.P.(c) No.15698/2004 has been filect bv smb. phoortr Raina, widow of Late Shri T.N. W.p.(C) No.J5239/2004 Raina who was a Governrnen[ Page 9 of't57 L2-- servetn[. Shri Raina was the allo[tee of Governmen[ accommocta[ion bearing no. DG-91-5, Salojini Nagar, New Detlii- 23. While sLill in service Shri T.N. Raina unforbunately expir:ed on l.he {tn ol August, 200L. The petitioner contends that laLe Sh. T.N. Raina ancl family which included herself were compelled Lo 'l 'flee' fronr. the valley in circurnstances identical to those of the obher petitioners. This peti[ionel is surviving on a meager 1:ension and she cannot afforcl any alternate accommod.ation. 6. The peLibioner in W.P.(C) No.56B1/2007 evacuated in the sail]e emergent conditions, is stated to be afflic[ecl with the Pdr*inson's clisease since his retirernenb. I-Iis home in Kashmir sl.ands burnt. His relative, one Mrs. Chuni Lal irad gotte t.o rebrieve her J:elongings frorn Kashrnir, bu[ was shol, dead ab point blanh range. The petitioner is s[ated to ]re bareiy surviving on his pension. He has no place to rel,urn in his home state. 7. So'far as the iretitioner in W.P.(C) No.2B69/2008 anct liis fami.ty are conOerned, they were shiftecl ou[ by the Governrlent on accbun[ of the perception of a serious threaL 'Lo Lheir lives. I[ is con'tended [ha[ the rnilitants have burnt the petitioner's aricestral home in orcler to demonstrate 'their in[en[ion of no[ sparing hirn. In addiLion, they have shoL dead his,uncle and wife at poinb blanl< range. As a result, other.than the quarter uncler occupation, the petitioner is without qny alternate shelter. B. shri P.K. I(oul, the petitioner in w.p.(c) No. 15239/2004, was a resident of Razclan, I(ochhaa, Bana Mohalla, Flabba Kaclal, srinagar ancl his entire properLy in srinagar has been clesLroyecl by Lhe cornmunal rio[s and terrorist nrovernents. I{e clear:ly Page I0 of 157 S[a'[es [hat he has no other hcluse anywhere in India. This pe[itioner was lastly posted as the Director Genera] with [he Borcler Securi[y Fbrce at R.K. PuLam, New Delhi. While in service, Lhis petitioner was allolted the premises no. I-I-52, Sarojini Nagar, New De1hi. On 3L't July, 2002, Lhe pebitioLer supera.nnua[ed. from service. The 'allotmen[. of Lhis accomrnoda[ion in his narne was cancelled by a le[ter cla[ecl 27l2}rt' August, 2002 with effect from L't Decernber, 2002 directing th.e petiLioner to vacate the accornrnodaLion irnrnediately and he was informed that on failure to vaeate, action to evict him under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unau[horised Occupants) Act; L97L would be tahen. Ttre respoldenbs also informed the pe[itioner that on failure to vacate, he would be liable to pay damage rent @ Rupees l_50, per sq. mtr. for the entire period of over stay. T'he petitioner was per;miLted bo retain l,he accomrnoclation frorn 19t December, 2002 Lo 3l-'t Apr1l, 2003 on payment of four times of the normal licen.se fee for [he nexttwo months. 9. . The pe[il,ioirer ancl his farnily are permanen[ resiclents of Lhe State of J&K and did not leave their .horne sl,ate volultarily buL were driven ou[ of the Srinagar valley. Their householcl goods were looted ahd house was burnt by the Lerrorists. other than the one resiclence, which also stancls clesl,royecl by the miiitants in srinagar, Shri p.K. I(oul ownecl no other proper[y. A grievance is made that the respondents have tairen no actiol for [he reconstruc[ion of the. houses of the peti[ioners ancl others like hirn which were destroyecl by the miliLanLs ancl to rehabilitaLe thern resulting in a pitiable concli[ion a1d. absence ry. P. (C) N o. 7 5 2 -a 9 /2 004 I Page II of 157 of any security for them. Consequenbly, they ale. tinal:Ie Lo return [o their own homes. '10. In this background, tfue petitioner sul:rnittecl a representation dated 24tr' March, 2003 seeking perrnission from tire responclenL to retain his accommoda[ion on payment of [he existing norrnal license fee'setting out the above'facts. Despite permilting retention of accommodation by oLher similarly placed persons, this request of the petitioner was rejected by the letber da[ed 20tr' February, 2003. The respon"dent ]1o. 2 fur[h.er referred tb.e case for evicLion of the petiLioner, treating hirn as an irnarithorised occupant of public premises under the Pul:lic Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, Ig71. n. In these proceedings, the following eviction order clabed 23'd September, 2003 was passed agai.nst the petibioner wliich was served on him on i8ft November, 2003:- "OFtrICE OI] THE ESTATE OFFICER AND DEPUTY DIREC'rOR OF ESTATE (LrT.) DTRECTORATE Or ESTATES, NIRMAN BHAWAN, NEW DLEI-II. EC/93/AD ILIEIOSIT-D All persons concerned and in parbicular Shri P.K. Koui, l-23, Nor[h West Moti Bagh, I.[** Delhi whereas I, the undersigned am satisfiecl for the reasons recorded below that shri P.K. KouI is an unau[]rorizecl occupabion of the premises specified in the Schedule below I REASONS You have l:een continuing to occupy the premises specified in Lhe schedule below even after its allo[ment stands cancelled in your name w.e.f. t.2.03 vicle letber no. TLt 12931y1-23 I 9 6 dabed B.LI.0Z. ' You have failed '[o prove that you are not in unaul.horizecl occupa[ion of the ins[ant premises. Now, therefore, j.n exercise of the powers conferrecr on me under sub-sec[ion (I) of section 5 of lhe public premises W. P. (C) N o'. 7 52 3 9 /200 4 Page l2 of 157 I 2 (Evic[ion of Unautho$zed Occupants) Act, t97t,I hereby order Shri P.K. I(oul, and all the persons who may be in occupal.ion of the said premises or any part thereof to vacate the same within 15 days from the date of issue of this orcler. In the event of iefusal or failure to cornply with this order within tire period specified above, l,he said Shri P.K. I(ouI and all obher persons concerned are liable to be evicted frorn the said premises, if need be, by the use of such force as nray'be necessaly. SCHEDULE l-23, NorLh West Moti Bagh, New Delhi. Date : 23.9.2003 Copy to A.D.-T-D." sd/_ (8.K. I(ulshreshtha) ' ESTATE OFFICER 1,2. The pel,i[ioner filed an appeal regisl.erecl as PPA No. 333/2003 challenging the said evicl.ion orcler. ' It is conLencLecl that the learnecl Aclditional District Juclge ir.eciranically clismissed the petitioner's appeal by an orcler clatecl 1-0u' Sep[ember, 2004 ignoring the orclers passed by Lhe Supreme Cour[ and obher precedents of this court in respect of iclentically placed. persons, necessitating Lhe present petition. , The sul:mission is Lhat the cancellation of the petitioner's allotrnent by the letter clatecl 271;2}th August, 2002; rejection of the peLitioner's recluesL by the letter datecl 20tr' of Febrr.rary, 2003; l.he order of eviction dated 23'd Septernber, 2003, as well as the order of the learned ADJ dated LOth september, 2004. are legally no t sustainable. 'fhe wri[ petition lays a challenge [o Lhese orclers as weil as Lhe non-action of [he respondents. 13. ' The facLs relabing to the other petitioners in this bunch of petil,ions are sirnilar ancl ale nol. disputed by the responclents. Ilor [he puq]oses of convenience anci clarity, the cle[ails of W.P.(C) No.75239/2004 Page l3 of 157 t;he ailcl[rnen[ of accorntnodations wtiich were effecLecl in favour of the peti[ioners/the predecessor in interesh the dates of bheir rel,irement; the status of.allotment and par[iculars of the orclers which have been pa.ssecl against all the petilioners and are irnpu.gned in these wrib petiLions are tabulaLed below:- wit .tsetitiom IVo. Quarter ttr-Ilotted Date of X?.etiretnett tof ,AfIottee 31..7.2042 1..7.2002 30.9.2002 Date of intpuEtted order of Cancellati on of ',Allotntettt 'Date of i Date of l. intpuqnedl tlee Euiction I impwwed.. WP iCJ No.15239 12004 wP (c) No.15246 12004 WP (C) No.B62/2 006 wP (c) No.1779l 2006 H-52, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi GI-BOO, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi It-1.62, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi 1.2311\r, North West Moti Bagh, New Delhi zz.g.iooi 25.9.2003 25.9.2003 '10.9.2004 , 10.9.2004 20.'r2.2005t . 131.L0.2002 I I 131.10.2002 I-t--- lt.s.zooz Il----__ lt.s.zooz I Otder i srder int A47peatr 10.9.2004 23.9.2003 10.9.2004 0 499 A, Sector 3, IT.K. Puram , New Delhi z-20, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi wP (c) No.15241 12004 WP (C) No.1-5264 12004 30.4.2005 1.9.2004 28.3.200s 1,2.1"2.2005 12.1.2.2005 1.:3.2002 118.9.2002 10.9.2004 Ll..7.2003 10.9.2004 i30.6.2002 I l--- _l-__ _ Page l4 of 157 Writ Fetitiott 'No. wP (c)' No. L 527 912004 wP (c) No.1-569 8t2004 wP (c) No.2641- t2006 wP (c) No.56B1 12007 wP (c) Nct.2B69 12008 Quatter ,4IIotted 31252, A:rdrews Gad, New Delhi DG 915, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi Date of Iletirernen tof AIIottee Date of imtrtuEned order of Cancellati on of ,ALIotntent 30.4,1998 1.9. r 998 (Allottee Died while in service on 4.8.2001) 30.4.2004 3.3.2004 22.1".2002 L.7 .2004 25.+.2005 L.2.2006 MS/] 007, Sector VII, M.B. Road, New Delhi Allotted Quar[er in Delhi New Delhi wP (c) No.B599 /2008 , wP (c) No.B600 /2008 New Delhi New Delhi 30.9.2006 31..s.2007 31..1.2.2007 3L.I2.2007 31.1"2.2007 31:s.2008 3L.7.2008 wP (c) No.B60L 12008 New Delhi wP (c) No.B64L 12a09 wP (c) No.11-37 7 /2009 GI-809, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi BBO, Lakshmi Bai Nagar, New Delhi zo.+ioos 3.8.2009 W.P.(C) No.75239/2004 Page I5 of 157 SI/38, Sadiq Nagar, New Delhi S- r/6511"t, M.B. Road, New Delhi Quarter ,Altrotted DatE of R.etirenten tof AIIottee Date of irupugrned order of Cancellati on of AIIotment - bate of irnpuqned Euictiott Order ,6 Da[:e'of the irnpwqtaedi -m;ffi1 ,A,ppeaX 2s.8.2009 25.8.2009 25.8.2009 ; 25.8.2009 1,.9.2007 30.6.2008 1.8.200B 9.3.2009 30.11.2007 21".7 .2008 1_9. L.2009 30.4.2008 t8.8.2007 10.1L.200 B 30.6.2006 1_.11_.2006 1,8 .6.2007 LB.7 .2006 28.05.2007 AB-837,. Sarojini Nagar, New Deliri wP (c) No.1. L54 B/2009 wP(c) No.7057 /2007 wP(c) No.9609 12009 K-4tL2, Sector II, DIZ Area, Gole Market, New Delhi 4713N, DIZ Area, Sector 2, Gole Marhet, New Deliri x-224, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi Qr.No.2B 1-, Type-' IV, Sector-8, R.I(Pura tr, New Delhi. W.P.(C) No.75239/2004 Page 16 of 157 50.b2oo5 1,.2.2006 31.0B.2006 01.01_.2007 30.04.2008 31".1,2.2009 W ti{;i"o n e rs' c ott t;en ti otts t4. In these writ petitions, the petitioners h.ave all con[ended thaL they are permanent resiclents of Jarnrnu & I(ashrnir and have no clesire .whatsoeverlo resid.e in Delhi. However, on account of the prevailing circumstances ancl the inability of Lhe Governmenb Lo Secure .their lives and proper[ies in their hone state, Lhey ale.unable to leLurn Lo the state. Their properl"ies .and only homes in the vailey.have gither been desbroyecl or occupied 15. 'Passage of tirne .also has brought no change iir Lhe conclibions prevalent in the state of Jamrnu & I(ashnrir. The pelitioners lemain unabie to return to their own homes. 16. Mr. R.I(FIandoo, Mr. B.L. WaIi and Mr. SarnraL Nigarn, Iearned counseils appearing for the petitioners,. with ali [he vehemence a'[ their cornrnand, have, urged that the s[a'Lus of the petitioners sLands reduced to'Lhat of 'refugees' in"'Lheir own coun[ry with nowhere to go and no suppor[ at all from bhe stale, the only clifference being that instead of being clisplacecl Lo 'anoiher coun'[ty, the petitioners s[and evicted. within Lheir ornin ' country 17. 'I'he petiLioirers have contended that cliscretion and ilowet: is ves[ed. in Lhe responclents under SR 3L7-B-25 of the Aliobrnen[ of the ''Governntenb Residence (General Pool in Delhi) Rules to pernfL any llerson to occupy public premises. InsLances lr.ave been cited of the respondents perrnitling ol,irer persons inclucling iclentically clisplaced l(ashmiris to occupy public lrlernises. It is complainecl that the responclenbs .h"ave unfairly failed. to consicler Lhe special circurnsl,ances so far as [he W.P.(C) No.75239/2004 Page I7 of I57 30 pel,i[ioners. a]:e concerrlecl ancl have cliscrirnin"atecl against thcrn. The wri[ pe[itioners thus assail the failure of the respondeuts to exercise the discre[ion vesbed in them to permiL [he petifioners to con"[inue to occupy [he quarters, in accorciance with ]aw on bhe ground of arbitrariness. 18. The submission is that the'refusal of [he r:espondenbs [o perurit the pebitioners to rebain the allotrnen[ on payment of 'norrnal license fee is illegal and results in violation of the consLifutional rights of t]re petitioner as well as . thc constitutional ancl public law obligations, responsibilities ancl duties of the respondents. 19. It is sul:rnittecl that in thq given cilcurnstances the peLil-ioners cannob be cleernecl to be in 'unauthorisecl occupal.ion' for the purposes of the application of the Public Prernises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Ac[, '1971,. The pet"il"ioners contend that the respondenl,s wet"e consti[utionally manclatecl .to protect their right to life nncler ArLicle 21 of Lhe conslitution of India and having failed [o do so, were bound Lo ensure the right to shelter of the petitioners, which is an esse:ntial concomitant thereof. In bhis bachgrouncl, the iretitioners cirallenge inaction qua the rights of Lhe peLitioners; the legaiity ancl validity of the cancellation of [he al]otrnen[s of the cluarl.ers; as well as the proceeclings ancl all orclers uncler the Pul:lic Prernises (Eviction of unautrrorisecl occupanLs) Ac[, L971'. It is contendecl that the responclents have ignored all relevant material in initia[ing the proceeclings against l,]re petitioners, passing the impugned or.clers. W.P.(C) No.75239/2004 Page lB of.157 Xte swx@e n t s c o il [; e n tr CI il q 20. Mr. Ja[an Singh, learned Standing Counse] for bhe Union of Initia and Mr. R.V. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondbn[s challenge [he very rnaintainability of these writ peti[ions. it it contenclect that [he pubiic prernises were a]io[tecl to employees of the Government by virtue of their employrnenb. Such relabionships having corne l"o an end on superannr"ration/demise of [he governrnen'b serwant, learned counsels sLrongly urge [J.raL the petitioners liave no righ[ at all to conl,inue [o occupy l,he offici.al accomrllodation.after: their rebirernent. It is fur:ther urged bhat Lhe pe[itioners have no right or entitlernent [o any acco.mruoclation from [he respondents. The subrnission is that the cLecisions against the petitioners are in accordance wiLh the provisions of the AcL of I97L and judicial prececlenl.s cln bhe subjec'[ and cannot be faulted oq any legally tenable grounds. sl Matctial pleadinqs 2t. l3efore exarnining these submissions, learnecl counsel lor Lhe petitioners have drawn at[ention to Lhe petitioner:'s 1:leaclings in grouncls 4 to H, K, L & M of Wp @) Nct.1.5239/2004 P.K. r{oail vs. Estate offiaer ancl blic re.spondents resp"onse thereto whicli deserves bo be usefu]Jv considered in extenso and reads as follows:- W.P.(C) No.75239/2004 Page I9 of 157 Pleaclinicrs. in the \Mp (C) Ntl.1U,39@04 Grounds "l\'. Because the Flon'ble Supremle Ftr eaallincrs in countel' a.fi'ff,clavit gour]t of nlxdia in S.n-.F. Ors. Vs. $tate of TCIK & Ors. has considered bhe question. regarding Lhe possession of the accommodation oI the stmilaflv Piaceo employees and adjourned the rnatter sine die and till Lhe Suprerne Court decides the matber finally, the Responden[s cannot dispossess the Petitioner from the premises in question. Vide order dated 26.8.1-997 the Hon'ble Suprenre 'Court of India in the said case passed the following orders: "List this rnatter on a regular day