IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 829 of 2003. Dharam Singh S/O Late Sri Gaje Singh, C/O Mr. Dev Raj Singh, R/O 169/1 Chaumalli Roorkee, District Haridwar. … Petitioner. Vs. A.D.J. First F.T.C. Roorkee, District Haridwar and others. …Respondents. Sri Sharad Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Sudhir Kumar, Brief Holder for the State for the respondents. Date November 21, 2008. P.C.: Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard Sri Sharad Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sudhir Kumar, Brief Holder of the State for the respondents and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 18-7-2003 and 29-6-2001 passed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 respectively (Annexure No. 6 and 4 to the writ petition). Brief facts, giving rise to the present writ petition, are that the petitioner is a retired clerk of the respondent no.4-establishment. The petitioner had retained the premises, in which he was living at the time of his service, after the permissible period as per provision of the Financial Hand Book. Proceedings under Sections 4, 5 and 7 of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1972 (for short the Act) were initiated against the petitioner before the Prescribed Authority/S.D.M. Roorkee, district Haridwar bearing Case No.7 of 1999, State and others Vs. Dharam Singh. The case was decided by the Prescribed Authority on 29-6-2001, whereby Rs. 2,240/- penal rent was determined against the petitioner and he was ordered to pay the 2 same within one month. However, the petitioner did not prefer any appeal against this order passed. The order dated 29-6-2001 passed by the Prescribed Authority was assailed under Section 9 of the Act before the respondent no.1. The learned appellate Court by its order dated18-7- 2003, on the basis of the Government Order dated 2-1-1992 (copy Annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit) imposed the penalty @ Rs. 25/- per Sq.Mt. per month against the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that the damages/penalty could not be imposed against the petitioner, because the petitioner retained the official accommodation after retirement beyond permissible limit, for which the Prescribed Authority had already imposed penal rent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contented that the compensation/penalty as has been provided under Section 7 of Act is to be imposed in those cases where a person occupies the public premises without any authority, right or title. It is not disputed that the petitioner is a retired employee of the respondent no.3-establishment and the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the case of the petitioner only the penal rent could be imposed as provided in the Financial Hand Book against a retired employee and the provision of Section 7 of the Act cannot be made applicable in the present case has some force. So far as the directions as contained under the Government Order dated 2-1-1992 are concerned, the provisions of Financial Hand Book, Volume II, Parts 2 to 4 shall prevail over the administrative directions. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the material on record, I am of the view that the 3 finding recorded by the learned appellate court pertaining to imposition of penalty is perverse and cannot be sustained. The impugned order dated 18-7-2003 passed by the learned appellate court is liable to be set aside. So far as the order passed by the learned Prescribed Authority dated 29-6-2001 is concerned, the same has not been assailed by the petitioner and at the stage of writ petition, he is not entitled to assail the order of the Prescribed Authority. The order passed by the Prescribed Authority is liable to be maintained. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition deserves to be partly allowed. The writ petition is partly allowed. The order dated 18-7- 2003 passed by the learned appellate court is set aside. The order dated 29-6-2001 passed by the Prescribed Authority is maintained. The amount deposited by the petitioner in pursuant of the interim order dated 2-9-2003 shall be adjusted. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP