*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2869/2008 and CM No. 5540/2008 S.N. KAUL UOI AND ANR. Date of decision : November 30, 2010 ... Petitioner Through: Mr. R.K. Handoo with Mr. Yoginder Handoo and Mr. Manish Shukla & Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocates VERSUS ....Respondents Through: Mr. R. V. Sinha with Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL 1. 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. 15239/2004. November 30, 2010 kr . r XX ITA MITK^L) JUDGE 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 *IN. THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P,(C) No.15239/2004 & CM Date of decision:November;^^, P.K. KOUL • ...Petitioner Through: Mr. B. L. Wah, Advocate VERSUS ESTATE OFFICER AND ANR. ....Respondents Through; Mr. Jatan Smgh with Mr. Abliishek Aggarwal and Ms. Megha Bharara. Advocates. AND (2) Writ Petition (Civil) No. 15240/2004 . and CM No. 11013/2004 T.K. OGRA ' ... Petitioner Through: Mr. B. L. Wah, Advocate VERSUS, ESTATE OFFICER AND ANR. ' ' ....Respondents Through: Mr. Jatan Singh with Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal,and Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates. AND (3) Writ Petition (Civil) No. 15245/04 and CM No. 11026/2004 A.K. MUKOO ...Petitioner Through: Mr. B.L. Wali, Advocate VERSUS ESiyiTE OFFICERAND ORS. ....Respondents Through: Mr. Jatan Singh with Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal and Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates. W.P.(C) No.15239/2004 Page 1of 157 • • I • • " ' (4) Writ Petition (Civil) No. 15246/2004 and CM No. 11029/2004 M.L.DULLU ... Petitioner Througli: Mr. B.L. Walt Advocate VERSUS • ESTATE OFFICER AND ANR. ....Respondents Tlirougli: Mr. Jatan Singh with Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal and Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates. i51 A.K. TRISAL ... Petitioner Through: Mr. Manoj V. George, Advocate VERSUS ESTATE OFFICER AND ANR. ....Respondents Through: Mr. Jatan Singh with Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal and Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates. (6) Writ Petition (Civil) No. 15241/2004 and CM No. 11016/2004 T.S. BALI ... Petitioner Through: Mr. B. L. Wah, Advocate VERSUS ESWE OFFICERAND ANR. ....Respondents Through: Mr. Jatan Singh with Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal and Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates. (7) Writ Petition (Civil) No. 15264/2004 P.N. ICACHROO ... Petitioner , Through: Mr. B. L. Walt Advocate W.P.(C) Ho.15239/2004 Page 2 of 157 "ir- VERSUS .ESTATE OFFICER AND ANR. ....Respondents Through: Mr. Jatan Singh with Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal and Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates. AND (8) Writ Petition (Civil) No. 15279/2004 No. 11050/2004 C.L.MISRI ... Petitioner Through: Mr. B. L. Wah, Advocate VERSUS ESTATE OFFICER AND ANR. , • ....Respondents Through: Mr. Jatan Singh with Mr. •Abhishek Aggarwal and Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates. • AND Writ Petition (Civil) No. .1569S/2004 CM'No. 11044/2004 PITOOLA RAINA ...Petitioner (Wife of late Sii.T.N.Raina) Through: Mr. B. L. Wali, Advocate VERSUS ESTATE OFFICER AND ANR. ....Respondents Through; Mr. Jatan Singh with Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal and Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates. AND (10) Wi:it Petition (Civil) No. 1779/2004 CM No.'1557/2006 ,TEJKISHAN , ...Petitioner Through: Mr. Samrat K. Nigam, Advocate VERSUS . UOI St ANR. ....Respondents .•Through: Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, Advocate W.P.(C) No.15239/200A- Page 3.of 157 V ' AND it Petition (Civil) No. NO. 2379/2006 S.N.BHAT ... Petitioner Through: Mr. Manoj V. George, Advocate ' VERSUS UOI AND ANR. ....Respondents Through: Mr. Jatan Singh with Mr. Abhishek . Aggarwal and Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates. AND (12) Writ Petition (Civil) No. 56S1/2007 ' CM No,. 10547/2007 M.K. TIKOO ... Petitioner Througli: Mr. R.K. Handoo witli Mr. Yoginder TIandoo and Mr. Manish Shulda & Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocates VERSUS UOI AND ANR. , ....Respondents Tlirough: Mr. R. V. Sinha with Mr., A.S. Singh, Advocates. AND (13) Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7057/2007 and CM No. 13421/2004 C.L. FAINA ... Petitioner Through: Mr. Thalmr Summit, Advocate VERSUS UOI AND ANR. ....Respondents Through: Mr. R. V. Sinha with Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocates. W.p.(C) No.15239/2004 Page 4 of 157 S.N. ICAUL UOI AND ANR. AND Writ Petition (Civil) No. 23569/20)08 and CM No. 5540/2008 ... Petitioner Through: Mr. R.K. Hancloo with Mr. Yogiiider Handoo and Mr. Manish Shukla & Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocates VERSUS ....Respondents Through: Mr. R. V. Sinha with Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocates. AND (15) Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8599/2008 and CM No. 16497/2008 KANTIAYANI GANJOO ... Petitioner Througli:- Mr. R.K. ITandoo witli Mr. Yoginder Handoo and Mr. Manish Sliulda & Mr. Atul Sliarma, Advocates UOI AND ANR. VERSUS ....Respondents Tlirough: Mr. R. V. Sinha with Mr. A.S. Singh,Advocates. AND Writ Petition (Civil) No. and CM No. 16499/2008 IT.L. KOUL ... Petitioner Tlirough: Mr. R.K. ITandoo with Mr. Yoginder Handoo and Mr. Manish Shukla & Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocates VERSUS UOI AND ANR. ....Respondents Through: Mr. R. V. Sinha with Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocates. W.P.(C) No.15239/2004 Page 5 of 157 • T'" VIJAY MAM UOI AND ANR. P.L. ICAUL UOI AND ANR. Y.S. JAMWAL UOI AND ANR. & CM NO., 16501/200S ... Petitioner Through: Mr. R.K. Handoo with Mr. Yoginder Handoo and Mr. Manish Shukla .& Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocates VERSUS ....Respondents Through: Mr. R. V. Sinha with Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocates. Petitioner Through: Mr. Samrat K. Nigam, Advocate VERSUS ....Respondents Through: Mr. R. V. Sinha with Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocates. AND ... Petitioner Tlirough: Mr. Naresli Thanai/Advocate VERSUS Respondents Through: Mr. R. V. Sinha with Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocates. (20) Writ Petition (Civil) No. 11377/2009 M.K. BAZAZ ... Petitioner Tlirough: Mr. R.K. Handoo with Mr. Yoginder Handoo and Mr. Manish Shulda & Mr. Atul Sharma, AdvocaLes \N.P.{Q No.15239/2004 Page 6 of 157 UOI AND ANR. .VERSUS ....Respondents Through: • Mr. Jatan Smgh with Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal and Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates. (21) Writ Petition (Civil) No. 11548/2009 B.L. TAICAROO UOI AND ANR. ... Petitioner Through: Mr. Manoj V. George, Advocate VERSUS ....Respondents Through: Mr. Jatan Singh with Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal and Ms. Megha Bliarara, Advocates. & CM NO. 11242/2009 MOTILAL I<AUL ... Petitioner Through: Mr. B. L. Wali, Advocate VERSUS ESTATE OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF ESTATES, NIRMANBHAWAN ....Respondents . Through; Mr. Jatan Singh with Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal and Ms. Megha . Bharara, Advocates. (23) .Wri B.L. RAINA ESTATE OFFICER & CM NO. 11244/2009 ... Petitioner Through: Mr. B. L. Wali, Advocate VERSUS ....Respondents Through: Mr. Jatan Singh with Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal and Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates. \N.P.{C) No.15239/2004 Page 7 of 157 , & C.Mo.No.11246/2009 A.K. GIGOO ... Petitioner Tln^ougli: Mr. B. L. Wali, Advocate VERSUS ESTATE OFFICER ....Respondents Through: Mr. Jatan Singh with Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal and Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates. HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL 1. Whether reportersof localpapersmay be allowed I y to seetheJudgment? I 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? GITA MITTAL, I' • 1. The instant case is a testimony to events which lead to an unprecedented ethnic cleansing of a minority community from the Kashmir valley on account of the inability of the State to protect them and their property from violence, who, as a result were rendered homeless. Such turmoil was faced by the minority coinmunity in the state of Jammu & Kashmir after December, 1989, compelling its members to flee home, hearth and State for bare survival. These writ petitions have been filed by some of such displaced persons who were ,Central Government employees seeking protection against forcible eviction of the quarters occupied by them on the ground that it is the oiily roof available to them.. W.p.(C) Ho.15239/2004 Page 8 of 157 2. The petitioners contend that those representing tlj, Central Government in the Kashmir valley, especially those who were representing the intelligence agencies, para militaiy and defence forces aS' well as the Government media became prime targets of the militants to the extent that lists of such persons who had to be targeted were published and circulated in the localities. Family members and friends of such Government employees were killed ,and their properties destroyed for the message to permeate. As a result' immediate steps for evacuation of such officials on emergency basis were taken by the Government of India in order to at least protect their lives. 3. The writ petitioners in W.P.fC) Nos. 5681/2007, 2869, 8599, 8600, 8601/2008, 11377/2009, 15239. 15240, 15245, 15246, .862, 15241. 15264, 15279, 15698, 1779/2004, 2641/2006. '7057/2007, 8641.' 9609, ' 11548, 11488, 11489, 11490 & 11491/2009 were shifted from Jammu & Kashmir to Delhi and posted in the local offices of the central organization and department, where they were employed. 4. The facts disclose that all the petitioners (or the person on whom they were dependant as in the case of Smt. Phoola Raina wido'w of Late Sh. T.N. Raina writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 15698/2004) upon being brought to Delhi were allotted Government accommodation to reside'in, not only by virtue of their employment but also their extreme need for shelter. These allottees of the charters, superannuated from service on different dates over the period of time. 5. W.P.fC) No.15698/2004 has been filed ,by Smt. Phoola Raina, widow of Late Shri T.N. Raina who was a Government lA/.P.fQ No.15239/2004 Page 9 of]57 servant. Sliri Raina was the allottee of Government accomiiiodation bearing no. DG-915, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi- 23. While still in service Shri T.N. Raina unfortunately expired on the 4'^'' of August, 2001. The petitioner contends that late Sh. T.N. R.aina and family which included herself were compehed to •flee-from the valley in circumstances identical to those of the other petitioners. This petitioner is surviving on a meager pension and she cannot afford any alternate accommodation. 6. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5681/2007 evacuated in the same emergent conditions, is stated to be afflicted with the Parkinson's disease since his retirement. His home in Kashmir stands burnt. His relative, one Mrs. Chuni Lai had gone to retrieve her belongings from Kashmir, but was shot dead at point blank range. The petitioner is stated to be barely surviving on his pension. He has no place to return in his home state. 7.. So far as the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2869/2008 and his family are concerned, they were shifted out by the Government oh account of the perception of a serious threat to their lives. It is contended that the militants have burnt the petitioner's ancestral home in order to demonstrate their intention of not sparmg him. In addition, they have shot dead his:uncle and wife at point blank range. As a result, other than the quarter under occupation, the petitioner is without any alternate shelter. • 8. Shri P.K. Koul, the petitioner in W.P.(G) No. 15239/2004. was a resident of Razdan, Kochhaa, Bana Mohalla, Habba Kadal, Srinagar and his entire property in Srinagar has been destroyed by tlie communal riots and terrorist movements. He clearly . W.p.(C) No.15239/2004 Page Wof 157 states that he has no other house anywhere m India. This ^ petitioner was lastly posted as the Director General with the Border Security Force at R.K. Puram, New Delhi. While in service, this petitioner was allotted the premises no. H-52, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi. On 31"^ July, 2002, the petitioner superannuated from service. The allotment of this accommodation in his name was cancelled by a letter dated 27/28'^'' August, 2002 with effect from 1®*^ December, 2002 directing the petitioner to vacate the accommodation immediately and he was informed that on failure to vacate, action to evict him under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 would be taken. The respondents also informed the petitioner that on failure to vacate, he would be liable to pay damage rent (g) Rupees 150 per sq. mtr. for the entire period of over stay. The petitioner was permitted to retain the accommodation from 1®'- December, 2002 to 31®' April, 2003 on payment of four times of the normal license fee for the next two months. 9. The petitioner and his family are permanent residents of the State of J&K and did not leave their home state voluntarily but were driven put of the Srinagar ,valley. Their household goods were looted and house was burnt by the terrorists. Other than the one residence, which also stands destroyed by the militants in Srinagar, Shri P.K. Koul owned no other property. A grievance is made that the respondents have taken no action for the reconstruction of the houses of the petitioners and others like him which were destroyed. by the militants and to rehabilitate them resulting in a pitiable condition and absence W.P.(C) No.15239/2004 PageIIofI57 'TI of any security for tliem. Consequently, they are unable to return to their own homes. 10. ^In this background, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 24"' March, 2003 seeldng permission from the respondent to retain his accommodation on payment of the existing normal license fee" setting out the above facts. Despite permitting retention of accommodation by other similarly placed persons, this request of the petitioner was rejected by the letter dated 20"' February, 2003. The respondent no. 2 further referred the case for eviction of the petitioner, treating him as an unauthorised occupant of public premises under the Pubhc Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. 11. In these proceedings, the following eviction order dated 23''^ September, 2003 was passed against the petitioner which was served on him on 18"' November, 2003:- "O'FFICE OF THE ESTATE OFFICER AND DEPUTY DIPvECTOR OF ESTATE (LIT.) DIRECTORATE OF ESTATES, NIRMAN BHAWAN, NEW DLEPII. EC/93/AD/Lit/03/T-D All persons concerned and in particular Shri P;K. Koul, 123, North West Moti Bagh, New Delhi . . • Whereas I, the undersigned am satisfied for the reasons recorded below that Shri P.K. Koul is an unauthorized occupation, of the premises specified in the Schedule below : REASONS You have been continuing to occupy the premises specified in the schedule below even after its allotment stands cancelled in your name w.e.f. 1.2.03 vide letter no. TD/283/M-23/96 dated 8.11.02. You have failed to i^rove that you are not in unauthorized occupation of the instant premises. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred on me under Sub-Section (I) of Section 5 of the Pubhc Premises W.P.(C) No\15239/2004 Pagel2of}57 (Eviction of Unautliorized Occupants) Act, 1971, I hereby order Shri P.K. Koul, and all the persons who may be in occupation of the said premises or any part thereof to vacate the same within 15 days from the date of, issue of this order. In the event of refusal or failure to comply with this order within the period specified above, the said Shri P.K. Koul and all other persons concerned are liable to be evicted from the said premises, if need be, by the use of such force as may be necessary. SCHEDULE 123, North West Moti Bagh, New Delhi. Date : 23.9.2003 Copy to A.D.-T-D." Sd/- (B.K. Kulshreshtha) • ESTATE OFFICER 12. The petitioner filed an appeal registered as PPA No. 333 /2003 challenging the said eviction order. It is contended that the learned Additional District Judge mechanically dismissed the petitioner's appeal by an order dated 10^'' September, 2004 ignoring the orders passed by the Supreme Court and other precedents of this court in respect of identically placed persons, necessitating the present petition. The submission is that, the cancellation of the petitioner's allotment by the letter dated 27/28'^^August, 2002; rejection of the petitioner's request by the letter dated 20"' of February, 2003; the order of eviction dated 23'"'^ September, 2003, as weU as the order of the learned ADJ dated 10'^' September, 2004 are legally not sustainable. The writ petition lays a challenge to these orders as well as the non-action of the respondents. 13. The facts relating to the other petitioners in this bunch of petitions are similar and are not disputed by the respondents. For the purposes of convenience and clarity, the details of W.p.(C) No.15239/2004 Page 13 of 157 ' the allotment of accommodations which were effected in favour of the petitioners/the predecessor in interest; the dates, of theip retirement; the status of allotment and particulars of the order: which have been passed against all the petitioners and are impugned in these writ petitions are tabulated below:- • 1 • 2 3 4 5 6 . Writ Petition Qumter Allotted Date of Retireiiieii Date of impuffiied 'Date of. inimmned Date of • the No. t of order of Eviction impugned Allottee Caiicellati on of Allotment Order order in Appeal WP (C) • No.15239 /2004 H-52, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi 31.7.2002 31.10.2002 23.9.2003 10.9.2004 WP (C) No.l524d /2004 GI-800, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi 1.7.2002 31.10,2002 23.9.2003 10.9.2004 WP (C) No.15245 /2004 H-162/ Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi 7.5.2002 7.5.2002 25.9.2003 • 10.9.2004 •WP (C) No. 15246 /2C)04 123/IV, North West Moti Bagh, New Delhi 30.9.2002 7.5.2002 25.9.2003 10.9.2004 1 WP (C) No. 8 6 2/2 006 499 A, Sector 3, R.K. Puram , New Delhi 30.4.2005 1.9.2004 28.3.2005 • 20.12.2005 1 WP (C) No.1779/ 2006 Z-20, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi 12.12.2005 12.12.2005 31.1.2006 31.1.2006 WP (C) No. 15241 /2004 11/5, Sector-1, M.B. Road, New Delhi 31.10.2001 1:3.2002 18.9.2002 10.9.2004 WP (C) No.15264 /2004 60/9, Sector-1, Pushp Vihar, . New Delhi 28.2.2002 30.6.2002 11.7.2003 1 i 1 10.9.2004 W.P.(C) No.15239/2004 Page 14 of 157 "II— 1 2 1 3 • 4 5 I Writ Petition Quarter Allotted Date of Retiremen . Date of impugned Date of'! hnBumied •No. t of , Allottee. order of Caiicellati ' on of Allotment Eviction . • Order WP (C) No.1527 9/2004 3/252, • Andrews Ganj, New- Delhi 30.4.1998 1.9.1998 3.3.2004 WP (C) No.1569 8/2004 DG 915, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi (Allottee Died while in service on 4.8.2001) 22.1.2002 1 WP (C) No. 2 641 72006 MS/1007, Sector VII, M.B. Road, New Delhi 30.4.2004 1.7.2004 25.4.2005 • WP (C) No.5681 /2007 Allotted Quarter in Delhi 30.9.2006 23.7.2007 WP (C) No.2869 /2008 • New Delhi 31.5.2007 WF (C) No.8599 /2008 , ' New Delhi 31.12.2007 10.11.2008 j WP (C) No.8600 /2008 New Delhi 31.12.2007 WP (C) No.8601 /2008 New Delhi 31.12.2007 10.11.2008 WP (C) No.8641 /2009 GI-809, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi 31.5.2008 20.4.2009 WF (C) No.1137 7/2009 .880, Lakshmi Bai Nagar, New Delhi 31.7.2008 3.8.2009 .... . . 1 /.P.(C) No.15239/2004 Page 15 of]57 1.2.2006 No. WP (C) No. 1148 8/2009 WP (C) No. 1148 9/2009 WP (C) No. 1149 0/2009 WP (C) No. 1149 1/2009 WP (C) No. 1154 8/2009 WP(C) No.7057 /2007 WP(C) No.9609 /2009 2 SI/38, Sadiq Nagar, New Delhi S- 1/65/11, M.B. Road, New Delhi AbT377 Sarojini Nagar, New Dellii K-4/12, Sector II, DIZ Area, Gole Marlcet, New Delhi 47/3A/, DIZ Area, Sector 2, Gole Market, New. Delhi . X-224, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi ,Qr.Np.28 1, Type- IV, Sector-8, R.K.Pura m. New Delhi. Date of Retiremen 30.6.2008 30.11.2007 30.4.2008 30.6.2006 30.9.2005 31;08.2006 30.04.2008 W.P.(C) No.15239/2004 "ir^ 1.8.2008 21.7.2008 18.8.2007 1.11.2006 1.2.2006 01.01.2007 31.12.2008 9.3.2009 19.1.2009 10.11.200 8 18.6:2007 18.7.2006 28.05.2007 16.03.2009 Page 16 of 157 25.8.2009 25.8.2009 25.8:2009 25.8.2009 1.9.2007 14. In these writ petitions, the petitioners have aU contended that they are permanent residents of Jammu & Kaslnnir and liave no desire whatsoever to reside in Delhi. However, on account of the prevailing circumstances and the inability of the Government to secure their lives and properties in their home state, they are unable to return to the state. Their properties and only homes in the valley have either been destroyed or occupied. 15. Passage of time ,also has brought no change in the conditions prevalent in the state of Jammu Si Kashmir. The petitioners remain unable to return to their own homes. 16. Mr. R.K.ITandoo, Mr. B.L. Wali and Mr. Samrat Nigam, learned counsels appearing for the petitioners, with all the vehemence at their command, have urged that the status of the petitioners stands reduced to that of 'refugees' in their own country with nowhere to go and no support at all from the state, the only difference being that instead of being displaced to another country, the petitioners stand evicted within their own • country. • 17. The petitioners have contended that discretion and power is vested in the respondents under SR 317-B-25 of the Allotment of the ••'Government Residence (General Pool in Delhi) Rules to permit any person to occupy pubhc premises. Instances have been cited of the respondents permitting other persons including identically displaced Kashmiris to occupy public premises. It is complained that the respondents have unfairly failed to consider the special circumstances so far as the • W.P.(C) Ho.15239/2004 Page 17of 157 petitioners are concerned and have discriminated against thei. The writ petitioners thus assail the failure of the respondents to exercise the discretion vested in them to permit the petitioners to continue to occupy the quarters/ in accordance with law on the ground of arbitrariness. 18. The submission is that the refusal of the respondents to permit the petitioners to retain the aUotment on payment of normal license fee is illegal and results in violation of the constitutional rights of the petitioner as well as the constitutional and public law obligations, responsibilities and duties of the respondents. 19. It is submitted that in the given circumstances the petitioners cannot be deemed to be in 'unauthorised occupation' for the purposes of the application of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The petitioners contend that the respondents were constitutionally mandated to protect their right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and having failed to do so, were bound to ensure the right to shelter of the petitioners, which is an essential concomitant thereof. In this background, the petitioners challenge inaction qua the rights of the petitioners; the legality and vahdity of the cancellation of the aUotments of the quarters; as well as the proceedings and all orders under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. It is contended that the respondents have ignored ah relevant material in initiating the proceedings against the petitioners, passing the impugned orders. l/l/.P.fC; No.15239/2004 Page 18 of 157 20. Mr. Jataii Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the Unio' of India and Mr. R.V. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents challenge the very maintainability of these writ petitions. It is contended that the public premises were allotted to employees of the Government by virtue of their employment. Such relationships having come to an end on superannuation/demise of the government servant learned counsels strongly urge that the petitioners have no right at all to continue to occupy the official accommodation after their retirement. It is further urged that the petitioners have no right or entitlement to any accommodatioii from the respondents. The submission is that the decisions against the petitioners are in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1971 and judicial precedents on the subject and cannot be faulted on any legally tenable grounds. Material pleadinas 21. Before examining these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners have drawn attention to the petitioner's pleadings in grounds A to H, K, L & M of WP (C) No,15239/2004 P.K, Koul Vs. Estate Officer and the respondents response thereto which deserves to be usefully considered in extenso and reads as follows;- Pleacliiicfs • in the WP (C) Pleadings in comliter affid Mo.15239/2004 Grounds "A. Because the Hon'ble Supreme W.P.(C) No.15239/2004 Page 19 of 157 Court of m SXoP. No/7639/1977 - Sliri TX, Koiil & Ors.-Vs. State off T&K & Ors. lias considered the question regarding the possession of the accommodation of the similarly placed employees and adjourned the matter sine die and till the Supreme Court decides the matter finally, the Respondents cannot dispossess the . Petitioner from the premises in cjuestion. Vide order dated 26.8.1997 the Hon'ble . Supreme Court of India in the said case passed the following orders: "List this matter on a regular day, after six weeks. • • In the meantime, Mr. P.P. Rao will ascertain from the State Govt. as to whether the petitioners can be put back to their respectiye houses owned by them in the Kashmir valley and can ensure protection of the persons as also their property.