IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P NO. 503 OF 2009 DECIDED ON : 06.02.2009 Punjab State Electricity Board ...Petitioner versus Addl. Distt. Judge and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present : Mr. Sukhbir Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) The petitioner-Punjab State Electricity Board seeks quashing of the orders dated 23.10.2008 (Annexure P-5) and 03.01.2009 (Annexure P-8). Vide the first order, the Director, Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh (a deemed University) has cancelled the allotment of 18 rooms occupied by the petitioner in the Aravali Hostel (Block-A): vide the second order, the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Civil), Chandigarh Administration, exercising the powers under the Public Premises (Eviction of un- authorized occupants) Act 1971, has ordered the petitioner's eviction from the above-stated premises and vide the last impugned order, the petitioner's appeal against the eviction order has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh. The facts, as culled out from the impugned orders are that : 18 rooms in Aravali Hostel (Block-A) in the campus of the C.W.P NO. 503 OF 2009 -2- third respondent were allotted to the petitioner by the Chandigarh Administration vide letter dated 18.03.1978. The entire premises of respondent No.3 was owned by the Chandigarh Administration at that time. The Government of India vide notification dated 16.10.2003, has declared the Punjab Engineering College, a 'deemed University' and pursuant thereto, the Chandigarh Administration has also issued a notification dated 08/09.07.2004, Clause 34 whereof reads as follows : “The land of Punjab Engineering College shall be transferred to the Punjab Engineering College Society on permanent basis. Chief Administrator Capital Project Chandigarh UT would issue the necessary notification in this regard. Regarding other moveable and immovable assets of Punjab Engineering College, a similar notification will be issued by the Secretary Technical Education, Chandigarh Administration. Till such formal transfer, the Society shall be permitted to use all such moveable and immovable properties of the Punjab Engineering College to carry out functions of the Society provided that no immovable property shall be disposed of, without prior approval of the Chandigarh Administration”. The Director, Punjab Engineering College, vide his order dated 05.06.2008 (Annexure P-3), cancelled the petitioner's license, asking it to vacate the 18 hostel rooms C.W.P NO. 503 OF 2009 -3- occupied by it. As the petitioner did not vacate those rooms, eviction proceedings were initiated which resulted into the eviction order dated 23.10.2008 passed by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act, 1971. An appeal preferred by the petitioner under the Act also met with the same fate and has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge. Two fold contentions have been raised on behalf of the petitioner before the Appellate Authority, as well as, this Court. Firstly, it is claimed that the premises came to be occupied by the petitioner in the year 1965 i.e before the Punjab Re-organization Act, 1966 came into force, therefore, its possession over the hostel rooms is protected under Section 77 of the said Act. The second contention is that the rooms were allotted by the Chandigarh Administration through its Home Secretary, therefore, the Director, Punjab Engineering College, was not competent to cancel the license. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in both the contentions. The Appellate Authority has gone through the original records which were summoned by it. It has returned a categoric finding that the rooms in dispute were allotted to the petitioner by the Chandigarh Administration through its Home Secretary vide a letter dated 18.03.1978. The semblance of any legal status, namely, the license to occupy these rooms, thus, was created in C.W.P NO. 503 OF 2009 -4- petitioner's favour first time on 18.03.1978 only and not in the year 1965. The second contention has been rendered totally academic as admittedly the Chandigarh Administration has also passed an order dated 22.12.2008, whereby the allotment of the premises in favour of the petitioner as licensee has been cancelled. The bona fide behind cancellation of the petitioner's license is beyond any pale of doubt. After respondent No.3 has been declared a deemed University, 50% of its seats are required to be filled in on All India Quota basis, as against the earlier quota of 15% only. Due to this reason, the demand for hostel rooms by the outsider students has substantially increased. It is only to meet out with the said demand that the petitioner's license has been cancelled and it has been asked to vacate the 18 rooms. No case to interfere with the impugned order is made out. Dismissed. FEBRUARY 06, 2009 (SURYA KANT) shalini JUDGE