CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.2263 OF 1991 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ---------- 1 Shameema Akhtar Bano 2. Ghazala Perween, both daughters of late Md. Serajuddin Ansari. 3. Md. Asharaf Nayeem 4. Md. Iqbal Nayeem 5. Md. Zafrul Imam Ansari, all sons of Md. Serajuddin Ansari, resident of flat no.2, Block no.1 (L.F.-1) Beur Housing Colony, Beur, Patna --------------Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Patna Regional Development Authority through its Chairman, Maurya Lok Complex, Patna 3. The Vice-Chairman, Patna Regional Development Authority, Maurya Lok complex, Patna 4. The Secretary, Patna Regional Development Authority, Maurya Lok complex, Patna 5. The Appellate Tribunal, PRDA, Patna ---------Respondents For The Petitioners : M/s Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate & Md.Anisur Rahman, Advocate For The Respondents : None P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA V.N. Sinha, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. None appears either for the Patna Regional Development Authority, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the PRDA) or its Successor Body, the Patna 2 Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the PMC). 2. Original writ petitioner was a retired employee of the PRDA who superannuated with effect from 31.1.1982. Before his superannuation, he was allotted flat no. L.F. 1/2, Block No. 1, Beur, Patna. Even after retirement he has continued in the same quarter. This writ petition has been filed against the order passed by the Vice-Chairman dated 10.4.1989 in Eviction Case No. 9 of 1988, whereunder original writ petitioner was directed to vacate flat no. L.F. 1/ 2, Block No. -1, Beur, Patna as original writ petitioner having retired from the PRDA, was not authorized to continue in the said flat. Aforesaid order of the Vice- Chairman has also been affirmed in appeal, vide order dated 5.3.1991, passed in Appeal No. 29 of 1989, Annexure-6. Original writ petitioner having died during the pendency of the writ application, has been substituted by his legal heirs. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that original writ petitioner while in service, deposited 3 Rs. 8,075/- in lieu of execution of Hire Purchase Agreement, but the agreement was never executed and after his retirement, eviction notice was issued which was challenged before the Vice-Chairman. The Vice Chairman without taking into account the deposit made by the original writ petitioner directed for eviction of the original writ petitioner from the flat in question. It is also submitted that other employees of the PRDA were given similar offer and in their case Hire Purchase Agreement was executed, but in the case of the petitioner eviction was ordered. Reliance in this connection is placed over the recommendation of the land disposal committee of the PRDA dated 17.9.1990 in which recommendation was also made in favour of the original writ petitioner for settlement of the flat in question in favour of the original writ petitioner. The Vice Chairman, PRDA and the Tribunal refused the prayer of the original writ petitioner to set aside the eviction order on the ground that without there being any Hire Purchase Agreement executed by and between the PRDA and original writ petitioner he had no 4 authority to continue in the flat in question after his retirement. The Tribunal further found that sum of Rs. 8075/- was paid by the petitioner as penal rent for having continued in the flat after his retirement and not in lieu of hire purchase agreement. From the materials on record it does not appear that recommendation of the land disposal committee of the PRDA dated 17.9.1990 was ever approved by the Board of the PRDA. 4. Having heard counsel for the petitioners, I am of the view that the view taken by the Vice- Chairman, PRDA under order dated 10.4.1989 passed in Eviction Case No. 9 of 1988 is just and proper, Hire Purchase Agreement having not been executed by and between the PRDA and original writ petitioner, he could not have been allowed to continue in the flat in question after his retirement. Aforesaid contention of the Vice-Chairman has also been upheld by the Tribunal under orders dated 5.3.1991, passed in Appeal No. 29 of 1989. 5. In the circumstances, I do not see any 5 merit in the writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Patna Higha Court Dated 05th August, 2010 NAFR(Arjun) ( V.N. Sinha, J.)