--- 1 --- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE S.B.: HON'BLE MR. S. C. SHARMA, J WRIT PETITION NO. 6337 / 2011 KENDRIYA SAHKARI UPBHOKTA BHANDAR MARYADIT AND ANOTHER Vs. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY MP LOK PARISAR (BEDAKHLI) ADHINIYAM, 1974 AND ANOTHER * * * * * O R D E R ( 26/8/2011) The petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the order dt. 7/7/11 passed by the Competent Authority under the provisions of MP Lok Parisar Bedakhali Adhiniyam, 1974 in respect of the eviction proceedings initiated against the petitioners. In the present case, the petitioners have earlier also approached this court by filing a writ petition being aggrieved by the action of Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Medical Hospital, Indore in evicting them and the same was registered as WP NO. 777 / 2010. In the earlier round of litigation a categoric statement was made by the petitioner --- 2 --- No.1 that a permission was accorded to petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 to establish a medical shop and under some agreement between the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2, the petitioner No.2 was running a medical shop. Further contention of the petitioners is that this court has declined to interfere in the matter of eviction by passing an order dt. 12/11/10 and a liberty was granted to the authorities of the Medical College to evict the petitioners in accordance with law. Present petitioners not being satisfied by the order passed by this court preferred a writ appeal against the order dt. 12/11/2010 as well as being aggrieved by the action of the Medical College Authorities in evicting them and the same was registered as WP NO. 489/10. The writ appeal was also disposed of with a liberty to the authorities to take appropriate action in accordance with law for evicting the appellants from the premises in question. The competent authority has initiated proceedings in the matter of eviction of the petitioners and while the proceedings are going on, this present petition has been filed by the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that a notice was --- 3 --- issued on 1/2/11 to petitioner No.1 u/S. 4(1) of the Adhiniyam and later on an application was filed under Or. 1 R. 10 r/w. Or. 6 R. 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure by respondent No.2 for his impleadment and the competent authority has allowed the aforesaid application. Petitioner has prayed for quashment of the aforesaid order dt. 7/7/11. In the present case, the matter has been adjudicated earlier also and the earlier order passed by this court in WP NO. 7773/2010 reflects that the Medical College was facing a serious problem in shifting the patients to the operation theatre and a ramp was required to be constructed. The order passed by this court reads as under : Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The matter is being disposed of the with the consent of the parties at motion stage itself. In the present case, the petitioners before this Court are Cooperative Societies as stated in the writ petition registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and the permission was granted by the respondents in the year 1983 to the petitioner No.1 for establishing a medicine counter in the premises of M.Y. Hospital/Medical College, Indore. The permission is on --- 4 --- record as Annexure R-1. It is an admitted fact that no permission of any kind was granted in favour of the petitioner No.2 by the authorities to establish a medical counter and the petitioner No.1, who was granted the permission, has transferred the medical counter vide lease deed dated 21.09.1992 by accepting a sum of Rs.2 lacs as security deposit and has also fixed a rent of Rs.4,000/- per month in respect of the shop in question. It is pertinent to note that the aforesaid amount of Rs.2 lacs was not paid to the Medical College and the petitioner No.2 started depositing a sum of Rs.1,260/- per month towards the rent of the shop in question with the authorities of the Medical College. The respondent No.1 though was not operating the shop in question started receiving a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month without there being any agreement between the respondents and the petitioners, therefore, the fact remains that the petitioner No1 is not operating the shop in question after 21.09.1992 and the petitioner No.2 is operating the shop in question even though no permission at any point of time was granted by the authorities to the petitioner No.2 to run the shop in the premises in question. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Rame Gowda Vs. M. Varadappa Naidu, reported in 2004 (II) M.P. Weekly Notes and his contention is that the respondents cannot take action against the petitioners as there is a remedy provided under the law for taking action in --- 5 --- accordance with law. This Court has gone through the aforesaid judgment and it has been stated at Bar by the learned counsel for the respondents/State that they shall be taking an appropriate action in accordance with law only in the matter. This Court is of the considered opinion, that the petitioner No.2, who is at present running the medical shop, does not have permission to continue to operate the medical shop in question and the respondents are certainly free to take an appropriate action in accordance with the law. It has also been pointed out before this Court that the medical college is badly in need of the premises in question as a ramp is being constructed to shift the patients to the first floor of the building and to shift the persons who are critically ill. It has also been stated the entire sanction in this regard has been received and the construction activity has come to a stand still on account of the stay order granted by this Court. This Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents are certainly free to take an appropriate action in accordance with law for evicting the petitioners from the premises in question keeping in view the observations made in the aforesaid paragraphs. Resultantly, no case for interference is made out in the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to take an appropriate action in accordance with law. No order as to costs. --- 6 --- Not only this, the order further reflects that it was the petitioner No.1 therein who was in fact earlier granted some kind of permission to establish a medical counter and no permission of any kind was granted in favour of respondent No.2. A writ appeal was preferred challenging the order dt. 12/11/2010 passed by this court in WP NO. 7733 / 2010 and the order passed by the Division Bench in the writ appeal reads as under : W. A. No.489/2010 3.1.2011 Shri Satish Dagaonkar, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Vivek Patwa, learned Dy. G. A. for respondents. With consent heard finally. This intra Court appeal under Section 2 (1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is directed against the order dated 12.11.2010 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W. P. No.7773/2010. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants that, though the appellants are satisfied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge to the extent it has directed that “the respondents are certainly free to take an appropriate action in accordance with law for evicting the petitioners from the premises in question”, but according to him the observations made in the said order dated 12.11.2010 passed by --- 7 --- learned Single Judge to the extent that the Petitioner No. 2 (Appellant No. 2 herein) does not have permission to continue to operate the medical shop in question may come in the way of the appellants, while contesting the matter before the appropriate forum. In the circumstances a prayer has been made by learned counsel for the appellants that the order dated 12.11.2010 passed by learned Single Judge be modified to the extent that the respondents may be permitted to take an appropriate action against the appellants in accordance with law for evicting them from the premises in question, but the observations made in the order dated 12.11.2010 may not come in the way of the appellants or of the said authority while deciding the matter. The prayer appears to be reasonable and has rightly not been opposed by learned Dy. G. A. appearing for the respondents. Accordingly, the order dated 12.11.2010 passed by learned Single Judge in W. P. No.7773/2010 is modified to the extent that the respondents are free to take appropriate action in accordance with law for evicting the appellants from the premises in question. It is made clear that in case such proceeding are initiated by the respondents, the appellants shall be free to raise all the grounds available to them and the observations made by the learned Single Judge, prejudicial to the appellants shall not come in the way of the appellants and the authorities while deciding the proceedings as may be initiated by the respondents for eviction of the appellants. With the aforesaid modification/clarification in the order passed by the learned Single Judge this writ appeal stands disposed of. --- 8 --- C.C. within three days. The competent authority, keeping in view the order passed by this Court in WP No. 7773 / 2010 and W. A. 489 / 2010 has initiated eviction proceedings and this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners are stalling the proceedings on some pretext or the other pending against them under the provisions of the MP Lok Parisar Bedakhali Adhiniyam, 1974. As the matter is pending before the competent authority, this court does not find any reason to interfere at this stage. However, in case any adverse order is passed against the petitioners. They shall be free to assail the same and shall also be free to raise all possible grounds including the present ground before the appropriate appellate authority. With the aforesaid, the admission is declined. (S. C. SHARMA) J U D G E KR