IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9426 of 2009 Pashupati Kumar Paras, S/o-Late Jamun Das, R/o-9 Polo Road, P.S.-Airport, President of Lok Jan Shakti Party, Bihar, District-Patna. -Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Secretary Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Land Property Officer-cum-Competent Authority, Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. -Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Roy Shivajee Nath, AAG-IV. ------------ 04 13.11.2009 By this writ petition the petitioner, who represents a political party, challenges the action of the State in cancelling the allotment of premises to the political party, in question, for its party office and consequent thereto, has issued a notice to show cause why they be not evicted under the provisions of the Bihar Government Premises (Rent, Recovery and Eviction) Act, 1956. Mr. Giri, learned Senior counsel appearing in support of the writ petition, submits that firstly, the cancellation order is illegal and arbitrary because it is not preceded by any notice to show cause and secondly, because it has been cancelled not on a germane grounds relevant for the purposes. He then urges that the cancellation order being bad for the aforesaid ground and consequential order under the Bihar Government Premises (Rent, Recovery and Eviction) Act, 1956, cannot be sustained. The application is being opposed by the State and learned AAG-IV appears. - 2 - Heard the parties and with their consent, the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. It is not in dispute that the premises had been allotted pursuant to the decision of the government to allot premises to political parties for their Offices. This was a decision taken for the first time. It is not in dispute that earlier Offices of the political parties used to operate from any of the residence of its leaders, who had been allotted government premises. The allotment was subject to various terms and conditions. The allotment was ostensibly under Patna Central Pool Allotment Rules, 1986. I am not going into the disputes whether petitioner had sought renewal or not. Allotment has been cancelled, admittedly, without any show cause notice vide letter no.6499(M) dated 31.07.2009 (Annexure-5). Ordinarily, cancellation of allotment of a house in such a matter would attract firstly the principles of natural justice and then whether the cancellation is within the parameters of law or not. But, in my view, in the peculiar facts of the present case, those questions do not arise. The order cancelling allotment clearly shows that the premises is located in a highly sensitive area. Mr. Giri submits that what is understood by sensitive area, whether it is defined or not, is not known, even though it is not an issue. It is apparent that the premises is located adjacent to the Air Port runway and in close proximity of V.V.I.P. residences. It is also not disputed that in such close proximity though elected political leaders have been allotted residence, no premises have been allotted - 3 - to any political party to be used as party Office. The first thing to be seen is that this allotment has not been made as a matter of right. The government was not bound to make such allotment. The government was only facilitating political parties by giving them accommodation available in the Central Patna Pool of residences available with the government. Government considers that allotment of the said premises for use of any political party as its Office at that location to be undesirable. This, I say so because in the order cancelling the allotment itself, it is clearly stated that the competent authority has been directed to seek application from the petitioner’s political party for allotment of alternative premises. Thus seen, they are not being rendered premiseless only they are being moved from one sensitive location to another location. Thus, no irreparable injury is being caused. The petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right to remain in the same premises ad infinitum. It is purely on those administrative considerations that the petitioner has been asked to move and allotment cancelled. It is on these considerations, I hold that principles of natural justice, which is not an unruly horse, will not apply. Now, once the allotment is cancelled, so long as the cancellation order operates, the occupation of the person in the premises is unauthorized and if the occupation is unauthorized then the consequential order issuing show cause notice against eviction under the Bihar Government Premises (Rent, Recovery and Eviction) Act, 1956, as contained in memo no.6499 dated - 4 - 31.07.2009, cannot be said to be illegal in any manner. It is not an order of eviction. However, eviction would be imminent and for one conclusion in view of the cancellation itself which is not being interfered by this Court. Considering the fact that the government itself has offered petitioner an opportunity to select an alternative premises, it is hereby ordered that till a suitable alternative premises is allotted to the party of the petitioner and is given possession of to the petitioner’s political party, petitioner or its party would not be evicted from the premises, subject to orderly behaviour and security consideration. Mr. Giri very fairly states that the petitioner’s party have already undertaken before this Court in their rejoinder filed in these proceedings to maintain peace and orderly behaviour and not to create security risk in any manner. I hope, till the time they are in occupation of this premises by virtue of orders of this Court, they would be abide by such an undertaking. In view of the special facts aforesaid, with the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)