*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8599/2008 and CM No. 16497/2008 Date of decision : November 30, 2010 KANTIAYANI GANJOO ... Petitioner Through: Mr. R.K. Handoo with Mr. Yoginder Handoo and Mr. Manish Shukia & Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocates VERSUS UOI AND ANR. . . . . Respondents Through: Mr. R. V. Sinha with Mr. A.S. Singh,Advocates. CORAM: I HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITFAL Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? To be referred to the Reporter or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? GITA MITTAL, .1 For orders see W.P.(C) No. 15239/2004. (ITA MFrrT) November 30, 2010 i'I JUDGE 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 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHi ±. CNo015239/2004 & CM No, 11011/2004 Irk Date of decision: Novernber5f 2010 P.K. KOUL ... Petitioner Through: Mr. B. L. Wall, Advocate VERSUS ESTATE OFFiCER AND ANR. espondents Through: Mr. jatan Singh with Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal and Ms. Megba Bharara, Advocates. AND (2) Writ Petition (Civil). No. 15240/2004 and CM No. 11013/2004 T. K. OGRA ... Petitioner Through: Mr. B. L. Wali., Advocate VERSUS ESTATE OFFICER AND ANR. .espondents Through: Mr. jatan Singh with Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal and Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates. AND 9 (3) Writ Petitio. (Civil) No. 1524:5/04 and CM No. 11026/2004 A.K. MUKOO . ... Petitioner • Through: Mr. B.L. Wall, Advocate VERSUS ESTATE OFFICER AND ORS.: ....Respondents Through: Mr. Jatan Singh with Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal and Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates. ij WP.(C) No.1523912004 Page 1 of 157 a AND N (4) Writ PetiLion (Civil) No, 15246/2004 and CM No. 11029/2004 • M.L.DULLU ... Petitioner Through: Mr. B.L. Wali, Advocate VERSUS ESTATE OFFICER AND ANR. espondents Through: Mr. Jatan Singh with Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal and Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates. AND Writ Petition (Civil) No, 862/2004 and CM No, 736/2006 A.K. TRISAL ... Petitioner Through: Mr. Manoj V. George, Advocate VERSUS ESTATE OFFICER AND ANR. • . . . .Respond.ents Through: Mr. jatan Singli with Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal and Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates. AND Writ Petition (Civil) No, 15241/2004 and CM No, 11016/2004 T.S. BALI ... Petitioner Through: Mr. B. L. Wall, Advocate VERSUS ESTATE OFFICER AND ANR. esponden.ts Through: Mr. jatan Singh with Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal and Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates. AND Writ Petition (Civil) No, 15264/2004 and CM No, 11044/2004 P.N.. KACI-IROO ... Petitioner Through: Mr. B. L. Wali, Advocate W.P(C)/Vo.15239/2004 Page2of 157 VERSUS ESTATE OFFICER AND AN. . .. .Respondents Through: Mr. jatàn Singh with Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal and Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates. AND Writ Petition (Civil) No. 15279/2004 and CM No. 11050/2004 C.L.MISRI ... Petitioner Through: Mr. B. L. Wali, Advocate VERSUS ESTATE OFFICER AND ANR. ....Respondents Through.: Mr. Jatan Singh with Mr. . Abhishek Aggarwal and Ms. • Bharara, Advocates. AND Writ Petition (Civil) No. 15698/2004 and CM No. 11044/2004 PHOOLA RAINA ... Petitioner (Wife of 1ate Sh.T.N.Rainà) Through: Mr. B. L. Wali, Advocate VERSUS ESTATE OFFiCER AND ANR. espondents Through: Mr. Jtan Singh with Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal and Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates. AND • (10) Wr7it Petition (Civil) No. 1779/2004 and CM No. 1557/2006 • TEJ KIS HAN ... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sarnrat K. Nigam, Advocate VERSUS UOJ & ANR. ... .Respondents Through: Mr. Ravinder A.garwai, Advocate W.P.(C)No.15239/2004 Page3of 157 AND (11) Writ Petition (Civil) No 2641/2006 & CM NO. 2379/2006 S.N.BHAT ... Petitioner Through: Mr. Manoj V. George, Advocate VERSUS UOI AND ANR. . S .Respondents Through: Mr. Jatan Singh with Mr. Abhishek • Aggarwal and Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates. AND (12) Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5.681/2007 and CM No.. 10547/2007 M.K. T1KOO ... Petitioner Through: Mr. R.K. Handoo with Mr. • Yoginder I-Iandoo and Mr. Manish Shukia &; Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocates VERSUS UOI AND ANR. espondents Through: Mr. R. V. Sinha with Mr. A. S. Singh, Advocates.. • • . AND (13) Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7057/2007 and CM No, 1342 1/2004 C.L. PA1NA • ... Petitioner Through: • Mr. Thakur Summit, Advocate VERSUS • . • U 01 AND ANR. I . . . . Respondents Through: Mr. R. V. Sinha with Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocates. W.P.(C)No.15239/2004 Page4of 157 HIF AND Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2869/2008 and CM No. 5540/2008 S.N. KAUL ... Petitioner Through: Mr. R.K. I -Iancloo with Mr. Yoginder Handoo and Mr. Manish Shukia & Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocates VERSUS UOI AND ANR. . . . . Respondents Through: Mr. R. V. Sinha with Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocates. AND Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8599/2008 and CM No, 16497/2008 KA.NTJAYANI GANJOO ... Petitioner Through , Mr. R.K. Handoo with W. Yoginder Handoo and Mr. Manish Shukia & Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocates VERSUS I IJOT AND ANR. . . . .Respondents Through: Mr. R. V. Sinha with Mr. A.S. Singh,Advocates. AND Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8600/2008 and CM No. 16499/2008 H.L. KOJL ... Petitioner Through: Mr. R.K. Handoo with Mn Yoginder Handoo and Mr. Manish Shukia & Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocates VERSUS UOI AND ANR. . . . .Respondents Through: Mr. R. V. Sinha with Mr A. S. Singh, Advocates. W.P.(C) No.1523912004 Page 5 of 157 AND (17) Writ Petition (Civil). No. 8601/2008 • & CM NO., 16501/2008 • VIJAY MAM . ... Petitioner Through: Mr. R.K. Fandoo with Mr. Yoginder Handoo and Mr. Manish Shukia & Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocates VERSUS . UOI AND ANR. . . . . .Respondents Through: Mr. R. V. Sinha with Mr. A. S. Singli, Advocates. AND Writ Petition (CM1) No. 8641/2009 and CM No. 5796/2009 • • • • P.L. KAUL • ... Petitioner • • • Through: Mr. Samrat K. Nigam, Advocate VERSUS UOI AND ANR. . • .. . .Respondents Through: Mr. R. V. Sinha with Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocates. AND Writ Petition (Civil) NO. 9609/2009 & CM NO. 7654/2009 Y.S. JAMWAL • ... Petitioner Through: Mr. Naresh Thanal, Advocate VERSUS UOI AND ANR. • • .....Respondents Through: Mr. R. V. Sinha with Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocates. AND • • (20) Writ Petition (Civil) No. 11377/2009 • • & 10986/2009 M.I. BAZAZ ... Petitioner Through: Mr. R.K. Handoo with Mr. • Yoginder Handoo and Mr. Manish ShikIa & Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocates W.P.(C)No.15239/2004 Page6of 157 VERSUS .UOI AND A.NR. .. . .Respondents Through: Mr. Jatan Singh with Mr. Abhishék Aggarwal and Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates. AND (21) Writ Petition (Civil) No 11548/2009 & CM NO. 11351/2009 B. L. TAKARO 0 ... 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 Writ Petition (Civil) No 11488/2009 & CM NO. 11242/2009 MOTILAL KAUL ... Petitioner Through: Mr. B. L. Wali, Advocate VERSUS ESTATE OFFICER, DIRECTOTE OF ESTATES, NIRMAN BI -IAWAN . . . . . . . Respondents . Through: Mr. Jatan Singh with Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal and Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates. AND Writ Petition (Civil) No. 11489/2009 & CM NO. 11244/2009 B.L. BAINA . . ... PetitiOner Through: Mr. B. L. Wali, Advocate VERSUS E STATE OFFICER . . . . .Respondents Through: Mr. Jatan Singh with Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal and Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates. AND (24) Writ Petition (C) No. 11490/2009 & CMoNo11246/2009 A.K. GIGOO Petitioner Through: Mr. B. L. Wall, Advocate VERSUS ESTATE OFFiCER . . . .Respondents Through: Mr. Jatan Singh with Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal and Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates. CORAM: HON]3LE MS. JUSTIi[CE G1[TA MITTAL • IL Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? I 2. To be referred to the .Reporter or not? - 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? CITAMIALJ 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 I mlnority community in the state of jammu & Kashmir after December, 1989, compelling its members toflee 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 only roof available to them. / ••.•; W.P.(C) No.1523912004 • Page8of 157 The petitioners contend that those representing the Central Government in the Kashmir valley, especially those who were representing the intelligence agencies, para military 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 emergeticy basis were taken by • the Government of India in order to at least protect their lives. The writ petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos. 5681/2007, 2869, 8599, 8600, 8601/2008, 11377/2009, 1.5239, 15240, 15215, 15246, .862, 15241, 15264, 15279, 15698, 1779/200 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. The facts disclose that all the petitioners (or the person on S whom they were dependant as in the case of Smt. Phoola Raina widow 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, em.pioent but also their extreme need for shelter. These aliottees of the quarters, superannuated from service on different dates over the period of time. W.P.(C) No.15698/2004 has been filed.by Smt. Phoola Raina, widow of Late Shri T.N. Raina who was a Government W.P.(C) No.1523912004 Page 9 of157 I servant. Shri Rai.na was the allottee of, Government accommodation bearingno. DG-915, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi- 23. While still in serdce Shri T.N. Raina unfortunately expired on the 4 Ih of August, 2001. The petitioner.contends that late Sb. T. N. Raina and family which included herself were compelled to flee from the valley in circumstances identical to those of••]e other petitioners. This petitione' is surviving on a rneager pension and she cannot afford any alternate accommodation. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5681/2007 evacuated in the sani.e emergent conditions, is stated to be afflicted with the Prkinson's disease since his retirement. His home in Kashmir 0 stands burnt. His relative, one Mrs. Chuni Lal had gone to retrieve her belongings from Kashmir, but was shot dead at point blank range. The petitioner is stated to he barely surviving on his pension. He has no place to return in his home state. So far as the petitloner in W.P.(C) No.2869/2008 and his family are concerned, they were shifted out by the Government on account of the perception of a serious threat to their lives, lEt S is contended. that the militants have burnt the petitioner's ancestral home in order to demonstrate their intention of not sparing him. in.a.ddition, they have shot dead hisuncle and wife at point blank ra.nge. As a result, other than the quarter under occupation, the petitioner is without any alternate shelter. Shri P.K. Koul, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 15239/2004, was a. residert of Razdan, Kochhaa, Bana Mohalia, Habba Kada], Srinagar and his entire property in Srinagar has been destroyed by the communal riots and terrorist movements. He clearly W.P.(C) NoJ523912004 Page 10 of 157 states that he has no other house anywhere in 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. 1 -1-52, Sarjini Nagar, New Delhi. On 31st July, 2002, the petitioner superannuated from service. The 'ailotmen.t of this accommodation in his name was cancelled by a letter dated 27/28 August, 2002 with effect from P t 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 a . Unaithorisecl 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 Q Rupees 150 per sq. mtr. for the entire period of over stay.. The petiti.oier was permitted to retain the accommodation fioni P December, 2002 to 101" 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 1 the State of j&K and did not leave their home state voluntarily but were driven out of the Srinagar valley. Their household goodis 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 grievane 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.1523912004 Page 11 of 157 of any security for them; Consequently, they are unable to return to their own homes. 1 0. In this background., the petitioner submitted a representation dated 24th March, 2003 seeking 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 th . February, 2003. the respondent no. 2 further referred the case for eviction of the petitioner, treating him as an hnauthorised occupant of public prmise.s under the Public. Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. 11. In these proceedings, the following evictiot order dated 23" September, 2003 was passed against the petitioner winch was served on him on 18 " November, 2003:- "OFFICE OF THE ESTATE. OFFICER AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ESTATE (LIT.) DIRECTORATE OF ESTATES, NIRMAN BHAWAN, NEW DLEI-II. 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. Kou.l 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 prove 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 Public Premises W.P.(C) No.1523912004 Page 12 of 157 0 (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, 1 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 tb.e 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 maybe necessary. SCHEDULE 123, North West Moti Bagh, New Delhi. I (B.K. Kulshreshtha) - ESTATE OFFICER Date : 23.9.2003 Copy to A.D.-T-D." H 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 mec1.an.ica1ly dismissed the petitioner's appeal by an order dated lOLl) 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 27/28t1 August, 2002; rejection of the petitioner's request by the letter dated 2011 of February, 2003; the order of eviction dated 23r , September, 2003, as well as the order of the learned ADI dated 10th Septentber; 2004 are legally not sustainable. The writ petition lays a challenge to these orders as wel]. as the non-action of the respondents. 17. 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.1523912004 Page 13 of 157 the allotment of accommodations which were effected in favour of the petitioners/the predecessor in interest; the dates, of their retirement; the status of allotment and particulars of the orders which have been passed against all the petitioners and are impugned in these writ petitions are tabulated below:- I -- Writ Quarter Date of Date of Dite of iL Petition Allotted Retirenwn impugned jp. u . ned No, t of order of Eviction im Allot:tee Cancellati Order 0. onof Allotment WP (C) H-52, 31.7.2002 31.10.2002 23.92003 1C No.15239 Sarojini /2004 Nagai,. New Delhi WP(C) Cl-BOO, 11.7.mo2 31.10.2002 23.9.2003 1C No.1524.0 Sarojini /2004 Nagar, New Delhi WI? (C) H-162, 7.5.2002 7.5.2002 25.9.2003 1C No.15245 Sarojini /2004 Nagar, New Delhi WI? (C) I.23/IV, 30.9.2002 17.5.2002 25.9.2003 1C No.15246 North /2004 West Moti Bagh, New Delhi WP (C) 499 A, 30.4.2005 28.3.2005 1.9.2004 No.862/2 Sector 3, 20 006 R.K. Puram New Delhi WP (C) Z-20, 12.12.2005 12.12.2005 31.1.2006 31 No.1779! Sarojini 2006 Nagar, WP(C) 18.9.2002 11/5, 31.10.2001 1.3.2002 No.15241 Sector-i, /2004 M.B. Road, New Delhi WP(C) 60/9, 28.20O2 30.6.2002 11.2003 1( No.15264 Sector-i, /2004 Pushp Viliar, New Delhi ate of the ed 'der in 9.2004 9.2004 .9.2004 .9.2004 12.2005 .1.2006 .9.2004 .9.2004 W.P.(C) No.1523912004 Page 14 of 157 nA 2 3 4 5 - WJt I Date of Quarter Date of Date of I Petition Allotted Retirenwn impugned inuqned Eviction No. t of ordeI of ii Allottee Cancellad Order onof All otnwn t WP (C) 3/252, 1 30.4.1998 1.9.19983.3.2004 No.1527 Andrews 9/2004 Ganj, New Delhi WP (C) - DG 915, (Aflottee 22.1.2002 - No.1569 Sarojini Died while 8/2004 Nagar, in service New on Delhi 4.8.2001) W]P (C) MS/1007 1 30.4.2004 1.7.2004 25.4.2005 1 No.2641 Sector /2006 VII, M.B. Road, New Delhi 23.7.2007 WP (C) Allotted 30.9.2006 No.5681 Quarter /2 007 in Delhi WP(C) New 31.5.2007 - - No.2869 Delhi /2008 WP(C) New 31.12.2007 10.11.2008 ; No.8599 Delhi /2008 WP (C) New 31.12.2007 - - No.8600 Delhi /2008 WP (C) 31.12.2007 10.11.2008 New No.8601 Delhi /2008 WP (C) 31.5.2008 20.4.2009 GI-809, No.8641 Sarojini /2009 Nagar, New Delhi WP (C) 880 31.7.2008 3.8.2009 No. 1 137 Lakshrni 7/2009 Bai Nagar, New Delhi - W.P.(C) No.1523912004 Page 15 of 157 I S 6 7)ateof H the piiqned rdr iiii]i 4ppeal .2.2006 LI 1 2 3 - 4 5 Writ Date of Date of Date of Quak'ter Petition Allotted Retireinen impughed /jpu1e EvicUoi No, t of order of Allottee Cancdllad Order H OflOf Allotment - WP (C) SI/38, 9.3.2009 30.6.2008 1.8.2008 No.1148 Sadiq 8/2009 Nagar, New Delhi WP(C) S- 30.11.2007 21.7.2008 19.1.200 No.1148 1/65/11, 9/2009 M.B. Road, New Delhi WP (C) AB-837, 30.4.2008 18.8.2007 10.11.20 No.1149 Sarojini 8 0/2009 Nagar, New Delhi WP (C) 3.6.2006 1.11.2006 18.6.200 K-4/12, No.1149 SectorlI, 1/2009 DIZ Area, Cole Market, New Delhi •WP (C) 47/3A/, 30.9.2005 1.2:2006 18.7.200 No.1154 DIZ Area, 8/2009 Sector 2, Cole Market, New Delhi WP(C) 28.05.200 X-224, 31.0.8.2006 01.01.2007 No.7057 Sarojini /2007 . Nagar, New Delhi WP(C) Qr.No.28 30.04.2008 31J2.2008 16.03.200 No.9609 1, Type- /2009 IV, Sector-8, R. K. Pura m, New Delhi. I W.P.(C) No.1523912004 I, Page]6of157 Date of the order in Appeal 25.8.2009 - H 25.8.2009 7 1 25.8.2009 25.8.2009 1.9.2007 30. Fe titiOneJ3" contentions In these writ petitions, the petitioners have all contended that they are permanent residents of jammu & Kashmir and have 110 desire whatsoever to reside in Delhi. Howeyer, 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. Passage of time also has brought no change in the conditions prevalent in the state of jammu & Kashmir. The petitioners remain unable to return to their own homes. Mr. R.KJjandoo, Mr. B.L. Wali and Mr. Samrat Nigam, iearned coun.sls appearing for the petitioners, with all ftc 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 cotintry, the petitioners stand evicted within •their own $ country. 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 public 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) No.1523912004 Page 17of 157 31 petitioners are concerned and have dischminated. against them. The writ petitioners thus assail the failure of the respondents to exercise the discretion vested in them to permit the ititioners to continue to occupy the quarters, in accordance with law on the ground of arbitrariness. The submission is that the refusal of the respondents to permit the petitioners to retain the allotment on payment of normall license fee is illegal and results in violation of the cnstitut:i.onai rights of the petitioner as well as the constitutional and public law obligations, responsibilities and duties of the re spondents. It is stibmitted 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 man.dtecl 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 E essential concomitant thereof. In this background, the petitioners challenge inaction qua the rights of the Petitioners; the ].egality and validity of the cancellation of the allotments 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 all rievant material in initiating the proceedings against the petitioners, passing the impugned orders. W.P.(C) No.1523912004 ' Page 18 Of.157 61--- Respondents con ten tiQns Mr. jatan Sin.gh, learned Standing Counsel for the union of India and Mr. RV. Sinha, leârlled 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 righ.t or entitlement to any accommodation from the respondents. The submission is that the decisions against the petition.ers 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 pleadings Before examining these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners have drawn attention to the petitioner's pleadings in grounds A to H, K,