WP(C) 6567/2003 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6567/2003 and CM 17201/2008 Date of decision : 06.05.2009 IN THE MATTER OF : JASWANT SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Kumar Rajesh Singh, Advocate with Ms. Punam Singh, Advocate versus UOI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Advocate CORAM * HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? No. 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No. HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL) 1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for directions to the respondent No. 2 to withdraw the notice dated 26.08.2003 issued by the respondent No. 2, under Section 5(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), calling upon the petitioner and all other persons in occupation of the premises bearing No. 1438, Lodhi Road Complex, New Delhi, to vacate the same within 15 days. WP(C) 6567/2003 Page 2 of 4 2. Brief facts of the case are that in the year 1983, the petitioner joined the Directorate of Horticulture, CPWD as a Section Officer. The respondent No. 1 allotted him a Type-II quarter, referred to hereinabove, on a monthly licence fee of Rs.122/-. On 07.06.1997, the petitioner was relieved from his posting at Delhi and transferred to the Horticulture Department at Mumbai. When posted in Mumbai, the petitioner did not avail of any house rent allowance and the family of the petitioner continued to stay in the staff quarter in Delhi. On 15.07.2000, the petitioner was relieved from his posting in Mumbai and transferred back to Delhi. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued a notice to show cause dated 28.01.2003, under Section 4(1) and Section 4(2)(b), calling upon him to explain as to why he should not be evicted from the premises, having continued to occupy the same after the allotment stood cancelled w.e.f. 19.06.1997. 3. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 17.04.2003 to the respondent requesting the respondent to regularize the cancelled government accommodation in his favour. In the said representation, the petitioner also mentioned cases of other similarly situated officers, whose cases were considered favourably by the respondent. However, the respondent refused to regularize the staff quarter in favour of the petitioner and instead, issued the impugned notice dated 26.08.2003, thus compelling WP(C) 6567/2003 Page 3 of 4 the petitioner to file the present writ petition seeking directions to the respondent No. 2 to recall the aforesaid notice. 4. Counsel for the petitioner seeks to draw the attention of this Court to an order dated 01.09.2008 passed in WP(C) 7146/2003 entitled ‘Chitranjan Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.’ to state that the facts of the present case are squarely governed by the aforesaid order. A perusal of the aforesaid order shows that the petitioner therein had sought setting aside of the order dated 17.10.2003, passed by the Estate Officer against the petitioner therein, who was working as an Assistant Director (Horticulture) in CPWD and was allotted a government accommodation, but on his being posted outside Delhi, the said allotment made in his favour was cancelled, though he continued to remain in possession of the staff quarter. The aforesaid petitioner filed a writ petition for directions to the respondent to regularize the accommodation in his name as was done in the cases of similarly situated persons, as mentioned in the said writ petition. 5. Unlike the present case, in the aforesaid case, a counter affidavit was filed by the respondent wherein it was not denied that the Union of India had regularized government accommodation in the cases of similarly situated persons. In view of the above, the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of with directions to the respondent to regularize the government WP(C) 6567/2003 Page 4 of 4 accommodation in favour of the petitioner therein on the same terms and conditions as was done in the cases of other similarly situated persons. 6. Guided by the aforesaid judgment, the present case is also disposed of by quashing the impugned notice dated 26.08.2003 issued by the respondent No. 2, and directing the respondents to regularize the government accommodation in favour of the petitioner as per the applicable rules and on similar terms & conditions and as was done in respect of other similarly situated persons, mentioned in Annexure P-6 filed in WP(C) 7146/2003. Needful shall be done by the respondents within a period of eight weeks from today, under a written intimation to the petitioner. 7. The writ petition is disposed of alongwith the pending application with no order as to costs. HIMA KOHLI,J MAY 06, 2009 rkb