*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . u Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7057/2007 and CM No. 13421/2004 Date of decision : November 30, 2010 C.L. RAINA ... Petitioner Through: Mr. Thakur Summit Advocate VERSUS UOIANDANR. ....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 MITIAL. T For orders see W.P.(C) No. 15239/2004. G^A MHT^) (G//JUDGE November 30, 2010 ^ 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 t *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +• WJ.(C) No:i5239/2004 & CM No. 11011/2004 • ' • •• • Date of decision; Novemlber^H 2010 P.K. KOUL • ...Petitioner Through: Mr. B. L. Wah, Advocate' VERSUS , - ESTATE OFFICER AND ANR. ....Respondents Through: Mr. Jatan Singh with Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal and Ms. Megha iBharara, Advocates. (2) Writ Petition (Civil) No. 15240/2004 : and CM No. 11013/2004 T.K. OGRAl ... Petitioner Through: Mr. B. L. Wah, Advocate VERSUS. ESTATE OFFICER AND ANR. ....Respondents Through: Mr. Jatan Singh with Mr.. ,v Abhishek Aggarwal and Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates. (3) Writ Petition (Civil) No. 15245/04 and CM No. 11026/2004 A.K. MUKOO • ... Petitioner Through: Mr. B.L. Wah, Advocate VERSUS ESTATE Officer AND'ORS. ....Respondents Through: Mr. Jatan Singh with. Mr, Abhishek Aggarwal and Ms. Megha . . Bharara, Advocates. W.P.(C) No.15239/2004 Page I of) 57 • (4) Writ Petition (Civil) No= 15246/2004 • and CM No. 11029/2004 M.L.DULLU ... 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 (5) Writ Petition (Civil) No. S62/2004 A.K. TRISAL ... Petitioner j"' 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 ESTATE OFFICER AND ANR. ....Respondents- Through: Mr. Jatan Singh with Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal and Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates. • AND ' (7) Writ Petition (Civil) No. 15264/2004 and CM No. 11044/2004 P.N. KCACI-IROO ... Petitioner Through; Mr. B. L. Wali, Advocate • •W.P:(C) No.15239/2004 Page 2 of 157 VERSUS . \' .ESTATE OFFICER AND ANK .'...Respondents Through: Mr. Jatan Singh with Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal and Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates. (8) Writ Petition (Civil) No. 15279/2004 and CM 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. • (9) Writ Petition (Civil) No. 15698/2004 PHOOLA RAINA ...Petitioner (Wife oflate-Sii.T.N.Raina) Through: •Mr. B. L. Wali, Advocate VERSUS ESTATE OFFICERAND ANR. ...'Respondents Through: Mr. Jatan Singh with Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal and Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates. (10) Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1779/2004 .TEJ KISIIAN ... Petitioner Through: Mr. Samrat K. Nigam, Advocate VERSUS . UOI & ANR. ....Respondents •• Through: Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, Advocate W.p.(C) Ho.15239/2004 Page 3.of 157 m AND (11) Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2641/2006 & CM NO. 2379/2006 S.N.BHAT • ... Petitioner Through: Mr. Manoj V. George, Advocate VERSUS ' UOIANDANR. ....Respondents Through: Mr. Jatan Singh with Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal and Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates. (12) Writ Petition (Civil) No. 56S1/2007 and CM No.. 10547/2007 . M;K. TIKOO • ... Petitioner Tlirough; Mr. R.K. Handoo witli Mr. . Yoginder Handoo and Mr. Manish Shukla & Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocates VERSUS. UOIANDANR. • , / ....Respondents • Through: Mr. R. V. .Sinha with Mr., A.S. Singh, Advocates. (13)- Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7057/2007 • and CM No. 13421/2004 C.L. RAINA ... Petitioner Through: , Mr. Thakur Summit, Advocate •VERSUS UOIANDANR. ....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. Petition (Civil) No. 2869/2008 and CM No. 5540/2008 ... 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. and CM No. 16497/2008 I<CANTIAYANIGANJOO ... Petitioner' yOI AND ANR. H.L. KOUL UOI AND ANR. 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. R.K. Handoo with Mr. Yoginder Handoo and Mr. Manish Shulda & Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocates VERSUS' • . ....Respondents Through; Mr. R. V. Sinha with Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocates. W.P.(C) No.15239/2004 Page 5 of J57 A AND • . "(17) Writ Petition (Civil) No/S601/2(D)0IB & CM NO.. 16501/2000 VIJAY MAM UOI AND-ANR. ... 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. AND (18) Writ Petition (Civil) No. S641/2009 and CM No. 5796/2009 .p.l: icaul UOI AND ANR. Y.S. JAMWAL UOI AND ANR. M.K. BAZAZ ... Petitioner Through: Mr. Samrat K. Nigam, Advocate VERSUS . ....Respondents Through: Mr. R. V. Sinha with Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocates. : AND Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9609/2009 & CM NO. 7654/2009 ... Petitioner Through: ^Mr. Naresh Thanai, Advocate . VERSUS . ' ' Respondents . Through: Mr. R. V. Sinha with Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocates. AND Writ Petition (Civil)'No. 11377/2009 . • & 109,86/2009 ... Petitioner Through: Mr. R.K. Handoo with Mr. Yoginder Handoo and Mr. Manish ShuMa & Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocates \N.P.{Q No.15239/2004 Page 6 of]57 UOI AND ANR. .VERSUS ....Respondents Through: • Mr. Jatan Singh with Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal and Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates. (21) Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1154S/2009 B.L. TAKAROO UOr AND ANR. & CM NO. 11351/2009 ' ... Petitioner Through: Mr. Manoj V. George, Advocate VERSUS ....Respondents Through: Mr. Jatan Singh with Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal and Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates. (22) Writ, Petition (Civil) No. 114S8/2009 MOTILAL ICAUL ... Petitioner Througli: Mr. B. L. Wali, Advocate VERSUS ESTATE OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF ESTATES, NIRMAN BHAWAN ....Respondents Through: Mr. Jatan Singh, with Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal and Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates. . (23) Writ 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. W.P.(C) No.15239/2004 Page 7 of T57 - ni r- • (24) Writ.Petition (C) No. 1149(D)/2009 •. • . & C.Mo.No.11246/2009 A.K. GIGOO Petitioner Tlirough; 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 reporters oflocalpapers maybe allowed I to see the judgment? | 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the • Digest? 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 community 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 only roof available to them. W.p.(C) Ho.15239[2004 Page 8 of 157 r": 2. 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 emergency basis were taken by the Government of India in order to at least protect their lives. 3. The .writ petitioners in W.P.fO Nos. 5681/2007, 2869, .8599, 8600, 8601/2008, 11377/2009, 15239, 15240, 15245, 15246, •862, 15241, 1-5264. 15279, 15698, 1779/2004, 2641/2006. '7057/2007, 8641, 9609, 11548, 11488, 11489, 11490 & 11491/2009 were shifted from Jamniu & 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 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 employinent but also their extreme need for shelter. These allottees of the quarters, superannuated fi-om 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 W.P.(C) No.15239/2004 Page9of]5'7 servant. Sliri Raina was the allottee of Government • accommodation 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. Raina and family which included herself were compelled 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.CCl 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. It is contended that the militants have burnt the petitioner's ancestral home in order to demonstrate "'their intention of not sparing him. In addition, they have shot dead hisamcle 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. 15239/2Q04. was a resident of Razdan, Kochhaa, Bana Mohalla, Habba Kadal, Srinagar and his entire property in Srinagar has been destroyed by the communal riots and terrorist movements. He clearly : W.P.(C) Ho.15239/2004 • Page 10 of 157 —rii states that he has no other house anywhere m India. This _ 70 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 out 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 mihtants and to rehabilitate them resulting in a pitiable condition and absence 'W.P.(C)No.15239/2004 Page II of 157 ••"H" <7^ of any security for them. Consequently, they are unable to return to their own homes. 10. In this background, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 24"' Maixh, 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 undej 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:- "OFFICE OF THE ESTATE OFFICER AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ESTATE (LIT.) DIRECTORATE OF ESTATES, NIRMAN BHAWAN, NEW DLEHI. ' . 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 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) m.15239/2004 Page 12 of 157 r" • (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, I hereby order Sliri 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 maybe necessary. SCHEDULE 123, North West Moti Bagh, New Delhi. Sd/- (B.K. Kulshreshtha) • ESTATE OFFICER Date : 23.9.2003 Copy to A.D.-T-D." 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 aUotment 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 well 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 ]3 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:- . Writ Petition WP(C) • No.1-5239 /2004 WP (C) No.15240 /2004 WP (C) .No.15245 /2004 •WP (C) No.15246 /2004 WP (C) No.862/2 006 WP (C) No.1779/ 2006' WP (C) No.15241 /2004 WP (C) No.15264 /2004 2 Quarter Allotted H-52, Sarojini ' Nagar, New Delhi GI-800, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi H-162, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi 123/IV,. North West Moti Bagh, New Delhi 499 K Sector 3, R.K. Puram , New Delhi Z-20, Sarojini Nagar,' New Delhi 11/5, Sector-1, M.B: Ro'ad", New Delhi 60/9, Sector-1, Pushp Vihar, ' New Delhi Date of Metireineii t of Allottee 31.7.2002 1.7.2002 7.5:2002 30.9.2002 30.4.2005 12.12.2005 31.10.2001 28.2.2002 W.P.(C) No.15239/2004 Date of impugned order of Caiicellati on of Allotment 31.10.2002 31.10.2002 7.5.2002 7.5.2002 1.9.2004 12.12.2005 1:3.2002 30.6.2002 5 'Date Eviction Order 23.9.2003 23.9.2003 25.9.2003 25.9.2003 28.3.2005 31.1.2006 18.9.2002 11.7.2003 Page 14 of 157 Date • the order in 10.9.2004 10.9.2004 10.9.2004 10.9.2004 20.12.2005' 31.1.2006 10.9.2004 10.9.2004 . 1 i Writ Petition WP (C) - No.1527 9/2004 WP (C) No.1569 8/2004 WP (C) No. 2641 /2006 WP (C). No.5681 /2007 WP (C) No.2869 /2008 WP (C) No.8599 /2008 , • WP (C) No.8600 /2008 WP (C) No.8601 /2008 WP (C) No. 8641 /2009 WP (C) No.1137 7/2009 2 3/252, Andrews Gaiij, New Delhi DG 915, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi MS/1007, Sector VII, M.B. Road; New Delhi Allotted Quarter in Delhi' New Delhi New Delhi New Delhi New Delhi .GI-809, Sarojini Nagar, • New Delhi 880, Lakshmi Bai Nagar, New Delhi •3 Date of Retiremen t of Allottee. 30.4'.1998 (Allottee Died while in service on 4.8,2001) 30.4.2004 30.9.2006 31.5.2007 31.12.2007 3i;i2.2007 31.12.2007 31:5.2008 31.7.2008 W.P.(C) No.15239/2004 . Da.t& of impugned order of •CancelMti • on.of Allotment 1.9.1998 22.1.2002 1.7.2O04 Date Eviction . Order 3.3.2004 25.4.2005 23.7.2007 10.11.2008 i 10.11.2008 I 20.4.2009 3.8.2009 Page 15 of 157 Date i the • order in Appeal 1.2.2006 •T \ WP (C) No.li48 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 SI/38, Sadiq Nagar, New- Delhi S- 1/65/11, M.B. Road, New Delhi AB-837, , Sarojini Ncigar, New Delhi K-4/12, Sector II, DIZ Area, Gole Market, New' Delhi 47/3Ay, DIZ Area, Sector 2^ Gole Market, New Delhi X-224, Sarojini. Nagar, New Delhi Qr.No.28 1, Type- IV, Sector-8, R.K.Pura m. New Delhi. Date of t of Allottee 30.6.2008 30.11.2007 30.4.2008 30.6.2006 • 30.9.2005 31:0,8.2006 30.04.2008 W.P.(C) No.15239/2004 Date of on of 1.8.2008 21.7.2008 18.8.2007 1.11.2006 1.2.2006 01.01.2007 31.12.2008 5 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 all contended that they are permanent residents of Jammu & Kashmir and have 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 & Kashmir. The petitioners remain unable to return to their own homes. 16. Mr. R.K.Handoo, 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 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.{Q No.15239/2004 Page 17 of 157 "ir" — •1 petitioners are concerned and have discriminated against them. 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 allotment 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 ofthe 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 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 relevant material in initiating the proceedings against the petitioners, passing the impugned orders. W.P.(C) Ho.15239/2004 Page 18 of 137 20. Mr. Jatan Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the Union 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 accommodation 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 vleadinas 21. Before examining these submissions, learned counsel for the petitio,ners have drawn attention to the petitioner's pleadings, in grounds A to H, K, L & M of WP (C) No.15239/2004 P.K. Konil "Vs. Estate - Officer and the respondents response thereto which deserves to be usefully considered in extenso and reads as follows:- . •Pleacliiicffs • in the '• WI (C) Pleadiiicffs ill cou]liter affidavit No.15239/2004 Grounds "A. Because the, Hon'ble Sitpreme \N.P.{C) No.15239/2004' Page 19 of ]57 SX.P. No.7630/1977 - Sliri TX. Koul •& •& Ors. has Ors, Vs. State 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 question. 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