l) *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Writ Petition (Civil) No. L l54Al2OOg & cM NO. 1_L35L/2009 Date of decision : November 30, 201-0 B.L. TAKAROO ... 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. 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 ReporLer or not? . 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the \ \) Digest? GITA MITTAL. I For orders see W.P.(C) No. 1523912004. rilrnrffarr JUDGE November 30, 2O1-O 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 t1u *].1N T]FIE I-NNGT{ CO{JRT' OF DEX,HN AT' NT]EW DEN,]LIiX I W.P"(C) Nq15239/200qSk aM N-o. nnonl/2004 $' Date of' decision: Nov**lr*n$),'1"* ot P.K. KOUL : ESTATE OFFICERAND ANR. ... Iretitioner Through: Mr. B. L. WaIi, Advoca[e VERSUS ....Responden l,s Through: Mr. Jatan Singh with Mr. Abhisheh Aggarwal and Ms. Megha Bhar:ara, Advocates. AND (2) Writ tretition (Aivil) No. 115240/2004t ancl CM No. L1OL3/2004 T.K. OGRA .. PeLilioner Through: .Mr. B. L. Walj., Advocate VERSUS ESTATE OFFICERAND ANR. ....Respondenbs' Through: Mr. JaLan Singh with Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal and Ms. Megha . Bh.arara, Advoca[es. AND (3) Writ Fetition (Civil) No. IbZ qSNq arad CStt No. In 026/2004 A.K. MUKOO ... Pe[itioner ' Through: Mr. B.L. Waii, Aclvoca[e . VERSUS IISTATE otrFICER AND oRS. ...Itesponclents . Thi-ough: Mr. Jatan Singir with Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal and Ms. Megha ' Bh.arara, Advocates. Page I of 157 W.P.(C) No.75239/2004 ( 13 A.ND (4) Writ tretition (Civil) No. tr 5246/2004t and CM No. tr 102912004 M.L.DULLU Through: VERSUS ESTATE OtrFICERAND ANR. "'Respgnclents Through: Mr. Jatan Singh wi[h Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal and Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates. AND (5) Writ lPetition (Civil) No. 862/2CI04 ancl Ch{ No. 736/2006 ... Pel.itioner Mr. B.L. Wali, Advocate ... Petitioner Mr. Manoj V. George, A.K. TzuSAL Through: Advocate VERSUS ES'TATE OFFICER AND ANR. T.S. BALI ....R"rpondents . Through: Mr. Jatan Singh wi[h Mr. Abhishelc Aggar;wal and Ms. M'egha . Bharara, Advocates. AND (6) Writ tretition (Civil) No. n 52/X\nA04 amcl CM No. Itr 0n 6/2004 ... Petitioner Through": Mr. B. L. Wali, Advocate VERSUS ESTATE OFIiICER AND ANR. ....Itesponden[s Through: Mr. Jatan Singli wi[h Mr. Al:hisheh Aggarwal and Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates. ANtr (7) Writ tretition (Civil) F{o. jtb264/2004 and CM No. n La4M20A4 P.N. KACFIROO PeLitioner Through: Mr. B. L. Wa1i, Advocate W.P.(C) No.75239/2004 Page2ofl57 r rY VERSUS ,ESTATE OtrFICERAND ANE' "Respond-en[s Hffi $fS "ffi ,',#it,Sif; 3 Hi 3;H Bharara, Advocates. AND (S) Writ Fetition (Civil) No. n-5279l2CIO4t and CM No. 11"050/2004 ... PeLitioner Through: Mr. B. L. Wali, Advoca'Le VERSUS ESTATE 'FFICER o*offin* Mr. Jatan r;#";l,?l'$,?tt A-bhishek Aggarwal and Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates. (9) WriL tretition (Civil) No. 15698/2OQ4 ancn CM No. 1104U2044 PLIOOLA RAINA ... Petitiorler (Wif-e of lal,e' Str.f :N.Raina) Through: Mr. B. L. Wali, Advocate VERSUS ....Respondents ESTATE 'FFICERo*ofi)*nn' Mr. Jara' sinsh wittr Mr. Abhisheh Aggarwal and Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates. AND (tO1 Writ Fetition (Aivil) No. X.779l2004t and CM No. 1557/2AA6 . TEJ KISHAN rhrough: Mr. sarnrat K. Nis;,I:tH#lr" C.L.MISRI UOI & ANR. VERSUS Through: It W.P.(C) No.75239/2004 I ....Respondents Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, Advoca[e Page s .of 157 ,' t AND (tI) Wnf,[ tretitflon (Civit) No. 264Ll2006 & cM NO. 2379/2006 S.N.]3I-IAT ... PetiLiouer Through: Mr. Manoj V. George, Advoca[e ' VERSUS UOI AND ANR. ...'.ResPonclenbs Through: Mr. Jatan Singh wibh Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal and Ms. MeghJBharara, AdvocaLes. AN]D ' (12) Writ Fetition (Civil) No. 568 L2;AAT and CM No.. 1105 47 2AAT M.I( TIKOO .. Petilioner Through: Mr. R.K. Handoo with Mr. Yogind.er Handoo and Mr. Manish Shulda & Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocates VERSUS UOI AND ANR. rhroush: iur. n. v. sinha *ilhff:TldenLs Singh, Advocates. AND . (13) Writ Fetitflon (Aivil) No. 7Ob7nA07 and CM No. 13421J2OA4 C.L. RAINA .. petitioner Through: . Mr. Thakur Surnmi[, Advoca[e VERSUS UOI AND ANR. , ....ResponclenLs Through: Mr. R. V. Sinha wiLh Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocates. W.P.(C) No.75239/2004 Page 4 of t57 tL ,AND (14) Writ tretition (Civil) No. 2869/2008 . and CM No. 5540/2008 s'N' KAUL rhroush: Mr. R.K. I{anu::t*fililt Yogincier Hancloo and Mr. Manish \ Shukla & Mr. AtuI Sharma, Advocates VERSUS ' UOI AND ANR. ...ResPondent s Through: Mr. R. V. Sinha with Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocates. AND " (15) Writ'tretition (Civil) No. 8599/2008 ancl CM No. 16497/2008 KANTIAYANI GANJOO ... Petitioner Through: Mr. R.I( Handoo with Mr. Yoginder Handoo and Mr. Manish Shulda & Mr. Atul Sharma, Advoca[es VERSUS . UOI AND ANR. ...Respondents Through: Mr. R. V. Sinha with Mr. A.S. Singh,Advocates. A.ND (16) Wnit tretition (Civil) No. BG0CI/200S amcl CIW No. n-6499/200S I-I.L. KOUL ... petitioner Tluough: Mr. R.K. Handoo with Mr. Yoginder Handoo and Mr. Manish Shul<la & Mr. Atul Shanrra, Aclvocates VERSUS UOI AND ANR. ...ResponcLents Through: Mr. R. V. Sinha with Mr. A.S. Singh, Adyocates. W.P.(C) No.75239/2004 Page 5 of tsi \ -* lt*'"-"'*-- - AND (17) Writ tretition (Civil) No' 8601/20)08 & cM NO., L650L/2008 IT .. PeLitioner Through: Mr. R.I( Flandoo with Mr' Yoginder Hancloo and Mr. Manish Shuk]a & Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocates VIJAY MAM VERSUS UOI AND ANR. ....Responclenl.s Through: ' Mr. R. V. Sinha with Mr. A.S. I Singh, Advocates. AND (nS) Writ Fetition (Civil) No. 86411/2009 and CM No. 5796/2009 ... Petitioner P'L' I(AUL rhrough: Mr. samrat I(. Nigam, Advocate VERSUS UOI AND ANR. ...ResPonclen[s Through: . Mr. R. V. Sinha wi[tr Mr:. A.S- Singh, Advoca[es. . . :AND (19) Wnit Fetition (Aivil) No. 9609/2009 & cM NO. 7654/20q9 Y.S. JAMWAL .. Petitioner Through: Mr. Naresh'fhanai, AclvocaLe VERSUS UOI AND ANR. .....Responclen ts Through: Mr. R. V. Sinha *itt Mr. A.S. . Singh, Advocates. AND (20) Wnit Fetition (Civil) No. n_L377QAAE .!. & n 0986/2009 M.K. BAZAZ ... petitioner , Through: Mr. R.K. Flandoo with Mr. Yoginder Handoo and M::. Manish Shulda & Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocates W.P.(C) No.75239/2004 Page 6 of 157 .VERSUS ;;T".ff'?l$?" . Abhishek Aggarwal and Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates' A.ND (21) Wnit Fetition (Aivil) No" n 1548/2009 & cM NO. 1n35n-/2009 B.L. TAKAROO UOI AND ANR. MOTILAL KAUL ESTATE OFFICEF" NIRMAN BFIAWAN B.L. RAINA ESTATE OFFICER W.P.(C) No.75239/2004 (22) Writ Fetition (Civin) No" 'n-1488/2009 ... Petitioner Through: Mr. Manoj V. George, Advocate VERSUS .Respondents Through: Mr. Jatan Singh with Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal and Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates. AND & cM NO. L\24212AA9 ... Pe'bitioner Through: Mr. B. L. WaIi, Advocate VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ESTATE S, ....Responden[s . Through: Mr. JaLan Singh with Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal and Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates. & cvfi No. I,n244l2AAg ... Pe[itioner Through: Mr. B. L. Wali, Advoca[e VERSUS ...Responclents Through: Mr. Jatan Singh with Mr. Al:hishel< Aggarwal and Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates.' AND (23) Writ Fetition (Civil) No. lL1L4S9/2009 Page 7 of '157 (24) Writ treti,tion (C) No. 1n490/2009 A.K. GIGOO ESTATE OFFICER COHA.M: [TOT\[']EI,E MS. J{JS]ruAE GNTA MNTTAT, 1-. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowecl to see the Judgment? 2. To be refer::ed to the Reporter or not?. 3. Whether the judgment should be reporLed in the Digest? @ 1.. The instant case is a testimony to events which iead to an un1:recedented ethnic cleansing of a rninority comlnunity from the l(ashrnir valley on account'of the inability of tire Sta[e to 'protect them ancl their properby frorn violence, who, as a result, were renclerecl houreless. Such turrnoil was facecl by the ' ininority community in the state of Jamrnu si l(ashmir afl,er December, l-989, compelling its members Lo flee horne, rrearl,rr and State for bare survival. These writ petitions have been filed by some of snc;h ' displaced persons who were central Governrnenu ernployees seeking protection against forcible eviction of the cluarbers occupied by thern.on the ground that it is the only roof available to thern. W.P.(C) No.15239/2004 1," t? & C.Mo.No. 1- X-24612009 ... Pe[itioner Through: Mr. B. L. Wali, Advoca[e VERSUS ....ResPonden[s Through: Mr. Jatan Singh with Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal and Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates. Page 8 of tSt 2. . Tlre peti[ioners qontend. thab tirose repr"esenl,ing l,he Central Government in bhe Kashmir valley, especially [hose who were replesenting the intelligence agencies, para rnilitary and clefe:rce forces aS well as the Governrner: t media becarne pr-irne targe[s of the militants to the extent that lists of such persolls who hacl Lo'be targetecl were published and circulated in the localities. Family. members and friends of such Government empJ.oyees were killed and their properties clesb:oyed for bhe message to perrneate. As a result, immediate steps for evacuation of such officials on emergency basis were talcen by the Government of India in order to at least protect Lheir lives. 3. Tlre.writ petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos. 5681/2007, 2869, t5246 862. rs24L, L5.264 ts279 ts6g} L77 gl20}4 264Lt2006, ' 7 057 l2oo7 B64L 9609 , rL54B . L1.4BB, '1L489.. 1-1-490 & 11491i2009 were shifted from Jarnrnu & I(ashmir l.o Delhi ancl posl,ed in the local offices of the central organizalion ancl deparLmei{[.where they were employecl. 4. The facts. disclose that all the petitioners (or the person on whom they were clependant as in the case of SmL. Phoola Raina widow of Late Sh. T.N. Raina wrlt. petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 15698/2004) upon being brought to De1hi were alloLtecl Governmenl. accornmodation to reside'in, not only by virtue of [heir ernployrnent but a]So their exbreme neecl for shelter. These allotbees of bhe quarters, superannuatecl frorn ser-vice on clifferen[ clabes over the period of tirne. 5. w.P.(c) No.15698/2004 has been filecl.by srnt. phoortr Raina, widow of T,n1s shri r.N. Raina who was a Governrnen[ W.P.(C) No.75239/2004 .r It --- *---;- Page 9 of' 157 al servilnL. Shri Raina was the allottee of Govern'rnent accommoclation bearing no. DG-g1-5, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi- 23. While sLill in service Shri T.N. Raina unfortunately expired on the 4r.h of August, 2001. The petitioner contends that laLe Sh' T.N. Raina ancl famiiy which includ.ed herseif wel:e compellecl [o 'flee' from the valiey in circumstances identical [o those of the other petitiolers. This petitionel is sirrviving oll a lneagel: pension and she cannot afford any altelna[e accollmodation. 6. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.56BL/2007 evacuated in the salne eillergent conclitions, is stated to be afflic[ed with the Peirkinson's tlisease since his retirement. FIis horne in Kasirrnir stanrls l:urnt. I-Iis relative, one Mrs. Chrini Lal had gone [o retrieve her l:elongings from I(ashmir, bu[ was shOt deact a[ point l:lanh range. The petitioner is sl.atecl to l:e barely surviving on his pension. He has no place to return in his liome state. 7. So far as the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2B69l2008 ancl his farnily are concerned, they were shifted out by the Governmenb on account of the perception of a serious threaL to l,heir lives. IL 'is conLencled thab . the militants have burnt the p.e'l,itioner's ancestral home in order to demonstrate their intention of no[ sparing him. In ad.dition, they have shot deacl his,uncle ancl wife at point blank range. As a result, other than the cluarter under occupation, the petitioner is without qny alternate shell"er. B. Shri P.K. I(oul, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. L5239/2004, was a residenL of Razdan, I(ochhaa, Bana Mohalla, Habba l(acla1, srinagar ancl his entire property in srinagar has been desLroyecl . by the cornmunal r:iots and terrorist movements. FIe clear'1y . W.P.(C) No.7 5239/2004 Page l0 of 157 states Lhat he has no oLher house anywhere in India' This Debitioner was lastly posted as the Director Genelal. with tlre Delhi. Whitc i'n Border Security Force at R.K. Puram, New service, this petitioner was allotted the prernises no' I-I-52' Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi. on 3L't July, 2002, Lhe petitioner supera.nnuatecl frorn sewice. The 'allotrnen[. of bhis accomlnoclation in his nalne was Cancellecl by a ]e[ter cla[ecl 27l2BLt August, 2OO2 with effect from L't DecernJrer, 2002 clirecting tfte petitioner to vacate the accommoclaLiol irnrnediately ancl he was informed that on failure to vacate, action to evict hirn und-er the Public Premises (Eviction of Unaubhorised Occupants) Act, 1.97L would be tahen' 'Ihe responclenbs also informed. the petitioner thaL on failure to vaca[e, he would be liable to pay damage rent @ Rupees L50 per sq. rntr. for the entire period of over stay. The petitioner permitted bo retain bhe accolnmodation frorn 19t December, 2002 l.o 3L't April, 2003 on payment of four times of the normal license fee for the next [wo months. 9. The petitioner and his family are permanen[ resiclents of the State of J&I( and did not leave their .horne st"ate voluntarily but were driven out of the Srinagar valley. Their household goods were looted ahd house was burnt by tire '[errorists. Ol.her [han [he one residence, w]rich also stancls cles[royed by [he rnilitants in Srinagar, Shri p.i<. tcorrl ownecl no obher proper[y. A grievance is rnade that tire responden[s have ta]ren no action for l.he reconsLrucbion of the. houses of the petil.ioners ancl obhers lil<e hirn which were destroyecl by Lhe rnilitants ancl Lo rehabilitate thern resulting in a pitiable concli[ion and absence ry. P. (C) N o.7 5 2 -a 9 /2 00 4 Page II of 157 z3 of atry securi[y forj the'm. consequen[Iy, they al.e . tina]rle to re[uln to their own holnes. 10. In this bachgroulcl, [[e pe[i[ioner su]:rniLtecl a rept:esentatiol datecl 24tr'March, 2003 seeking perrnissiol from the responcienL to retain his accommoclabion on payment of Lhe existing normal license fee'setting olt the above facts' Despite perrnitting retention of accommodation }:y other sirnilarly irlaced persons, this request of the petitioner was rejected by the letter' Uo*.d 20tr' f.Uroury , 2003. The respondent ,ro. 2 ftrr[her referrecl the case for eviction of the petitioner, treating him as an trnauthorisecl occupant of public prernises uncler the Pul:lic Prernises (Evictiol of Ulauthorised Occupal[s) Act, L97I. 1,1,. In these proceeclings, the following eviction orcler cla[ecl 23'd September, 2003 was passed against the pe[itioner w]:ich was servecl on him on i8th November, 2003:- "OFFICE OF THE ESTATE OFFICER AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ESTATE (LIT.) DIRECTORATE OF ESTATES, NIRMAN BFIAWAN, NEW DLEHI. EC/93/AD lLrtl03lr-D All persons concerned and in particular Slui P.K. Koul, 123, North West Moti l3agh, N** Delhi Whereas I, the undersigned arn satisfied for the feasons recorded J:elow that Shri P.K. I(ouI is an unauthorized occupa[ion of the premises specified irr t]re Schedule below : REASONS You have been continuing to occupy the prem"ises specified in the schedule below even after iLs allotrnent stands cancelled in your name w.e.f. 1,.2.03 vide letber no. TD/zB3lM -23196 daLed 8.IL.02. ' You have failed to prove that you are not in unaul,horizecl occupa[ion of the instant premises. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred on me under Sub-SecLion (I) of Section 5 of the public premises W. P. (C) N o'. 7 523 9 /2004 Page t2 of 157 il (Eviction oi Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1,97 L, I hereby orcler Shri P.K. I(oul,,ancl all the persons who may be in occupation of [he saicl premises or any part thereof to ,racate the same within 1S days from the date of issue of this .order. In the event of refusal or failure Lo comply with this order within the period specified above, the said Shri P.K, Koul and. all other persons concelned are lial:le to be evicted. from the said premises, if need be, by the use of such force as may'be necessaqy. SCI{EDULE . !23, North West Moti Bagh, New Delhi. sd/- (8.K. (ulshreshtha) ESTATE OFFICER Date : 23.9.2003 Copy to A.D.-T-D." L2. The pebitioner filect an appeal regis[erecl as PPA No. 333/2003 challenging the said eviction order. It is conLended thaL the learned Additionai Dis[rict Judge mechanically cLisrnissecl the petitioner's appeal by an orcler dated LOtr' SepLemller, 2004 ignoring the orders passed by the Supreme Court and other precedents of this cour[ in respect of lclentically placed. persons, necessitating the present petition. , T'he subrnission is that the cancellation of the petiLioner's allotmen[ J:y the le[ter clated 27lzTth AugusL, 2}}2;.rejection of Lhe peLitioner's requesL by the letter da[ed 20th of February, 2003; the order of eviction dated 23'd Septernber, 2003, as well as the order of tire learned ADJ. dated l_0u' Septernber, 2004 are legaLly not sustainable. The. writ petition lays a challenge to these orclers as well as tire non-acti.on of the respondents. 13. The facts relating to the other petitioners in this bunch of petitions are similar ancl are not clisputecl by the responclents. Iror l.he purposes of convenience and clarity, bhe cietails of W.P.(C) No,75239/2004 Page l3 of 157 -/- % the ailotrnen't of accomrnod.ations wliich were effecLed in favour of the petitioners/the predecessor in interesb; the cla[es of Lheir re'[irem.ent; the status of allotment and pa::ticulars of the orclers which have been pa.ssed- against all the petitioners ancl are impu.g:red in thdse writ petitions are tabulated below:- Quarter ,4-IIotted Date of Iletirenten tof AIIottee Date of, impuEned order'of Cancellati on of ,4IIotntent .l 3lu I -t--' 'Date of .i Date of impwwedl ' tke Euictiott I itwwuatteatr . WP (C) No.15239 12004 WP (C) No.1-779l 2006 31..7.2002 31..L0.2002 23.9.2003 I.7.2002 3L.1_0.2002 23.9.2003 7.5.2002 7.5.2002 25.9.2003 30.9.2002 7.5.2002 25.9.2003 30.4.2005 1..9.2004 28.3.2005 Order i order in A4atrteal 10.9.2004 rf-52, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi GI-BOO, Sarojini Nagar, New Deihi r1-L62, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi 1.23/rV, North West Moti Bagh, New Delhi 499 A, Sector 3, R.K. Puram, New Delhi z-20, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi wP (c) l1ll5, No.L5241- |Sector-L, 12004 lM.B. Road, New Delhi wP (c) 160/e, 28.2.2002 No.1- 5264 l Sector-l-, 12004 lPushp i lr rut^ ^.. I Vihar, 10.9.2004 '10.9.2004, ' o.1524( 004 ,P (C) o.86212 L2.L2.2005 L.3.2002 10.9.2004 20.'12.200s : 10.9.2004, 10.9.2004. -l 31.1.2006 i31.r.2006 i lN"#b"u.i I r_-__ l_ ___l .6.2002 i30 I I l_ L8.9.2002 L'L.7.2003 t___ _ W.P.(G) No.75239/2004 lt-' L2.1"2.2005 31.10.2001 Page 14 of -l 57 i r- t-""-----' i Writ I Fetitiort .No. wP (c) No.1527 912004 WP (C) No.1569 812004 wP (c) No.2641 /2006 WP (C) No.56BL /2007 wP (c) No.2869 12008 wP (c) No.B599 /2008 ,' wP (c) No.B600 12008 -2 -= Quarter ,4IIotted 31252, Andrews Ganj, New Delhi DG 915, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi MS/].007, Sector VII, M.B. Road, New Deihi New Delhi New Delhi New Delhi Date of Iletirentett tof AIIottee intpugned order of itnpwCItted Euictiom 10.1L.2008 20.4.2009 3.8.2009 6 Date ot ilte itnp,wwrcan'. otder in Apltean L.2.2006 Cattcellati | , 0tder on of .A-IIotment 30.4.1998 1.9.1998 3.3.2004 (,q16tt* 22.t.2002 Died while in service o11 4.8.2001) 30.4.2004 1,.7..2004 25.4.2005 30.9.2006 23.7 .2007 3r .s.2007 31..L2.2007 I I L0.11.2008 | wP (c) No.B601- 12008 wP (c) No.B64L 12009 cr-g0s,- | Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi BBO, Lakshmi Bai Nagar; New Delhi 31.1.2.2007 g r s 2ooC- 3L.7 .2008 Allotted Quarter in Delhi New Deihi W.P.(C) No,75239/2004 Page 15 of 157 Writ Fetitiott No. WP (C) No.L148 B/2009 WP (C) No.l- 14B 9/2009 wp fcj No.1- L49 012009 wP (c) No.1- 1-49 1"12009 wP (c) No.1- 154 B/2009 wP(c) No.7057 12007 wP(c) No.9609 t2009 Quarter ,Atrtratted SI/38, Sadiq Nagar, New Delhi S- Ll6slrr, M.B. Road, New Deliri AB-837, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi r<-41r2, Sector II, DIZ Area, Gole Market, New Delhi x-224, )ar:oJrnl Nagar, New Delhi Date of Itretitenten tof A-IIottee - Date af intpwaned Euiation 0rder 6 Date'o,f ttrrc intpuqttedi ffitl* t ,4,p1aean zs.e.zoog 25.8.2009 ! 'i 2s.8.2009 I.9.2007 Date of inpuEtted arder of Cancellati on of AIIotm.ent 30.6.2008 1.8.200B 9.3.2009 30.11.2007 2r.7 .2008 1_9.1.2009 30.4.2008 t8.8.2007 1_0.11.200 B 30.6.2006 1. L 1.2006 1.8.6.2007 47 t3N, 30.9.2005 1.2.2006 DIZ Area, Sector 2, Gole Marlcet, New Delhi 3L.08.2006 0L.01 .2007 I 125.8.2009 I I 28.05.2007 30.04.2008 31".L2.2008 r o.os.zoog Qr.No.2 B 1-, Type- IV, Sector-B; R.K.Pura tn, New Delhi. W.P.(C) No.75239/2004 Page 16 of 157 Feti tiomers' conten tions 14. .In these writ petitions, the petitionels have all contended that they are permanent resicLents of Jarnmu & Kashnrir ancl have no d.esi::e .whatsoever to resid.e in Delhi' FloweveL, on account of the prevailing circumstances and the inabilily of fhe Governrnelt to secure their lives and. properties in their home state, they are unable to returr to the state. Their properties .and. only homes in the valley have either been desLroyed or . occupied. 1-5. 'Passage of time.also has brought no change in l.he conclitions prevalent in the state of Jamrnu & Kashrnir. The pe[itioners remain unab]e to return to their own homes. 16. Mr. R.K.Handoo, Mr. B.L. Wali ancl Mr. Sarnrat Nigam., learnecl counsels appearing for the petibioners, wi[h aII [he vehemence at their command, have urgecl that Lhe stal,us of Lhe : pe[itioners stands reduced to'that of 'reftrgees' in'their owt] coun.[ry wilh nowhere to go and no supporb at all from the s[a[e, the only clifference being that instead . of being clisplacecl to another corintry, the petitioners stand evicted wiLhin Lheir ornrn ' country L7. The petitioners lr.ave contended. that cliscre[ion ancl power is ves[ed in the respondents under SR 3L7-B-25 of the A1loLment of the ''Governrnent Residence (General Pool in Delhi) Rules Lo peruiL any person to occupy public p::ernises. Instances have been cited of the respondents perrnitting o[her persons including identicaliy clisplaced Kashmiris to occupy public prernises. it is cornplained that the responclenl,s have unfairly failerl to consicler the special circurnstances so far as [he W.P.(C) No.75239/2004 Page 17 of 157 Bl peti[ioners. are conce]:necl alcl have cliscriminatecl against' l'hern' The lyrit peti'[ioners thus assail the failure of t]re respondenl's [o exercise tlr.e cliscretion vestecl in them to permiL Lire petitiouers to con[inue to occupy the quarters, in accolclal]Ce with law otl the' gr:orincl of arbitrariness - 18. 'flre subrnission is that the'refusal of the respondents [o ' ferflriL Lhe petitioners to retain the ailotrnenl. on payrnenl' of ' norrnal license fee is illegat and results in violation of l'h"e consti[utional righ[s of t]re petitioner as well as [he .constitugional ancL public law obligations, r'esponsibilities ancl duties of the responclents. 19. It is subrnittecl that in the Uivln circurns[ances l,he, peLitioners cantlot be deemed to be in 'unauthorised occupal.ion' for the purposes of the application of the Pul:lic Premises (Eviction of Unauth.orised' Occupants) Act, I97I. The ' petitioners contend that the responden[s were constitutionally m.anclaLecl to protect l,heir right to life uncler ArLicle 2l- of the Constitution of India and having failecl to clo so, were bouncl to ensure bhe right to shelter of the petitioners, wliich iS all essenLial concomitant thereof. In, this backgrouncl, the petitioners challenge inaction qua the rights of the pelitioners; the legality and vaiidity of the cancellation of the aliotmenLs of the cluarl.ers; as well as the proceedings and all orders under the Pub1ic Prernises (Eviction of Unauthorisecl Occupants) Act, tg71". It is contendecl that'the respond-ents have ignorecl all lelevant naterial in initiating the proceeclings ag4iirst the petitloners, passing the irnpugned or.ders. W.P.(C) No.75239/2004 Page l8 ctf .1 57 I 3ct nesrto@ents conten 20. Mr. Jatan singh, learnecl standing counsel for: lhe union of India ancl Mr. 11.V. Sintra, learned. counsel fclr bhe respondents chailenge [he veIY maintainability of these writ petitions' It is contenclecl ttrat the public prernises were allotted [o ernployees of the Governrnent by vir[ue of their ernployrnenL' Sr"ich relationships having come to an end on Superannuation/demise of Lhe govel:ltnent ser-vant, learnecl counsels sbrongly urge [ha[ the petitioners tiave no rigirt.at all to continue Lo occripy l,he official accom.moclation after their reti.rement. It is further urged tirat the petitioners have no right or en[itlement to auy accom'Inoclatioir froin the respondents. The submission'is t,hat the clecisions against Lire petitioners are in accordan"ce wiLll Lhe provisions of [he Act of L97I ancl judicial precedents o.n ilre subjec[ and cannot be faulted on any legally tenable grouncls' Matefia| pleadinas 2L. I3efore examining these submissions, Iearnecl counsel for Lhe petitioners have clrawn atLention to the petil,ioner's pleaclings 'in grorincls A to H, K, L 6{ M of WP (C) Ner.L,5239/2O04 P.K. I(owI Vs. Estate hfficeui- ancl [he re.spondenl,s resp.olrse th.ereto whicli d.eserves to be useftdJy considered in extenso and reads as follows:- W.P.(C) No.75239/2004 Pag.e I9 of 157 lllleaclini Grounds "4. Because the Hon'ble SuxlrenTe