1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR : O R D E R : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1806/2009. (Chandra Prakash & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others) DATE OF ORDER : March 09, 2009. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS ____________________________________ Mr. Pushpendra Singh/Ms Nupur Bhati for the petitioners. BY THE COURT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners have prayed in this writ petition for quashing notice dated 26.12.2008 (Annex.-4) and order dated 09.01.2009 (Annex.-5). Brief facts of the case are that few shops were constructed by the Gram Panchayat Sayara under Rajeev Gandhi Gramin Rozgar Yojana, Sayara. These shops were released by the Panchayat in its name. The petitioners made an application for allotment of said shop in the year 2001 and deposited the amount. Thereafter, as per the petitioners, the shops were let out to them and they are in continuous possession of the said shops and the said 2 shops are only source of livelihood of the petitioners. Thereafter, respondents issued advertisement for tenancy of the shops, therefore, the petitioners served legal notice to the respondents and, thereafter preferred writ petition before this Court. The earlier writ petition filed by the petitioners was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2056/2007, in which, the following order was made by the Court : “In this view of the matter, these writ petitions are disposed of with the direction that before eviction from the shops in question, the respondents shall follow the procedure laid down under Rule 164 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that proposal have already been made by Gram Panchayat to the Chief Executive Officer of Zila Parishad, Udaipur as per Rules of 164 (4) of the Rules of 1996. If it is so, then Chief Executive Officer of Zila Parishad, Udaipuar may proceed with the matter in accordance with law. Till then, petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the shops in question.” Thereafter, a contempt petition was filed by the petitioner pointing out that the Chief Executive Officer has contravened the order passed by this Court because he has not taken action as provided under Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1964, wherein, the procedure is laid down for removing the unauthorized occupation of the premises in question. The contempt petition filed by the petitioners was registered as 3 S.B. Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No.114/2009 and the same was dismissed on the ground that no contempt had been made out. The petitioners were, however, given liberty to challenge the decision so given by the Chief Executive Officer for vacating the premises after decision of the earlier writ petition and the said contempt petition was dismissed vide order dated 25.02.2009 vide Annex.-7. Learned counsel for the petitioners is challenging the order impugned dated 09.01.2009 on the ground that the Chief Executive Officer has committed illegality while ignoring the provisions of the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1964, in which, procedure is laid down for eviction under Section 4 of the Act, therefore, the order impugned is illegal and deserves to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the notice as provided under the Act of 1964 was to be given by the Estate Officer under the Act of 1964; and, thereafter, action was to be taken; but, ignoring the provisions of the said Act, straight away, the order dated 09.01.2009 has been passed by the Chief Executive Officer which is illegal. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and upon perusal of the entire record of the case, I am of the opinion that that the shops in question were let out to the 4 petitioners by the Gram Panchayat Sayara and the Panchayati Raj institutions are under obligation to follow the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 for the purpose of letting out Panchayati Raj institution buildings; and, for the said purpose, Rule 164 is enumerated in the Rules of 1996. There is express provision provided under sub-rule (4) of Rule 164, which reads as follows : “(4) In case the premises are not vacated after three years time limit, or it is sub-let to some other persons in violation of terms of agreement or rent is not deposited regularly, Chief Executive Officer shall get the premises vacated after giving Show Cause Notice for eviction of premises, if requested by the concerned Panchayat or Panchayat Samiti.” According to the above provision of law, in case, the premises are not vacated after three years' time limit or it is sub-let to some other person in contravention of the terms of agreement or the rent is not deposited regularly, the Chief Executive Officer shall get the premises vacated after giving notice for eviction. In this case, it is apparent from the above provision that the Chief Executive Officer has all the powers for taking action for eviction of any tenant to whom any shop is let out. Here in this case, even in the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1964, a notification was issued on 12.11.1992, which reads as under : 5 “Appointment of Estate Officer for Panchayati Raj Institutions [Notification No.F.139/2/RDP/L&J/92/1266-GSR 146, March 30, 1992] In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Un-authorised Occupants) Act, 1964 (Rajasthan Act No.2 of 1965) and all other powers enabling in this behalf, the State Government hereby appoints all the Chief Executive Officers and Secretaries of Zila Parishads to Village Panchayats, Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads situated within their jurisdiction for the purpose of the said Act.” The above notification itself speaks that the Chief Executive Officer of the Zila Parishad has been authorized to exercise powers of Estate Officer also; meaning thereby, when the Chief Executive Officer can exercise power of Estate Officer also as pointed out by the petitioners, then, competency of the Chief Executive Officer of the Zila Parishad cannot be questioned by any tenant of the shop. Further, under Rule 164(4) of the Rules of 1996, when there is power given under the Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 to the Chief Executive Officer to take proceedings for eviction of the shops if any request is made by the Gram Panchayat, then, in my opinion, no interference is required in this case because as per Annex.-4 prior to passing order for eviction under Annex.-5 dated 09.01.2009 on 26.12.2008 a notice was issued by the Chief Executive Officer for vacating the shops. Thus, the Chief Executive Officer has acted upon as per the Panchayati Raj Rules, 6 therefore, he is not required to borrow the jurisdiction for following procedure which is laid down in the Act of 1964 because in the Panchayati Raj Rules also, there is provision under sub-rule (4) of Rule 164 of the Rules of 1996, wherein, the procedure is provided for eviction of the shops. In this view of the matter, I see no reason to interfere in the proceedings. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. However, if still the petitioners are desirous to remain as tenants of the shops in question, then, they are free to invoke sub-rule (5) of Rule 164 of the Rules of 1996; but, no mandate can be issued to the Panchayat or Panchayat Samiti for the purpose of negotiation as provided under Rule 164 (5) of the Rules of 1996 because it is for the Panchayat or Panchayat Samiti to take decision if any prayer is made by the shop-keepers who are in possession of the shops as tenants. (Gopal Krishan Vyas) J. Ojha, a.