•f/'^"% 1 ^s^ 1 '%>.. ^fc^ ^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION 1227) N0. 5659 OF 2011 Bharat Prasad Shanna, S/o Late Shri Gaya Prasad Shanna, Aged about 63 years, R/o Qrt. No. 1/C, Stareet 1/A, Sector 8, Bhilamagar, Tahsil & Distt. Durg (C.G.) PETITIONBR: APPBLLANT RB8PQNDENT8: VE.RSUS 1. 2. Chairaiaa-cuin-Managuig Director, Hmdustaa Steel Works, Construction Ltd., H.O. At P-34A, Gariyaliat Road, KoUsata, 700 031 (WB) Huidustaa Steel Works Construction Ltd. BhUai, Through General Manager, HSCL, Tahsil & Distt. Durg (C.G.) Estate Officer, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, 1st floor, Town Adiainistration BuUduig, Indira Palace, BhUai Nagar, Distt. Durg (C.G.) WRIT PBTITION UNDBR ARTICLB 226 OP THB CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB :Honyble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Mr. Shashank Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vaibhav A. Shukla, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 8& 2. None for the respondent No. 3. ORDBR (Passedoa 11/10/2011) By this petition under Article 226 of fhe Constitution of India petitioner has challenged the legality aad propriety of the order dated 3/8/2011 passed by District Judge, Durg, Distdct Durg (C.G,) in civU appeal No. 04/2010 affirmmg the order dated 27/7/2007 passed by Estate Officer, BhUai in case No. 09/2007 whereby Estate Officer has passed the order for eviction of petitioner retired eraployee of H8CL, Mr, Shashaiik Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner aad Mr. Vaibhav A. Shukla, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 & 2 are heard, ^ 3. Order impugned and copy ofother docuinents penised. ^".^^ ^ % ! —&j —z?-^ 4. Leamed counsel for fhe petitioner subiaits fhat whUe disniissing fhe appeal learaed Distdct Judge, Durg has nientioned in Para-8 that in W.P.(C) No. 2514/2010, this Court has dismissed the petition on inerits aad has not passed any order relating to niamtainabiUty of eviction proceediag before fhe Estate OfEicer but ia ftie aforcsaid petition, petitioner was not party, 5. Learaed counsel for fhe petitioner further subiaits fhat HSCL & Bhilai Steel Plaat i.e. SAIL are separate aufhority, HSCL is not uiider fhe admiaistration of SAIL/BSP therefore, Estate Officer appoiated by BSP or SAIL is not coinpetent to entertahi fhe petition for eviction ofpreniises owned by HSCL, 6, Leai-ned counsel for the petitioner also subinits that although land was aUotted aad has been niade available by BSP to HSCL for constoruction of fhe house for ftieir employees aad fhey are recovermg biUs of electoricity consuniption but BSP is not owner of fhe property. 7. Learaed counsel for fhe petitioner also submits that by aad under the provisions of Public Sector Iron aad Steel Conipanies (Restructunng) and MisceUaaeous Provisions Act, 1978 (iti short 'fhe Acty) especiaUy ia the Ught of Section 9 of the Act his share held by Integral Coinpaay i,e. SAIL has been transferred to tlie Central Goverainent. 8. On the ofher hand, learaed counsel for the respondents No. 1 & 2 opposed tiie petition aad subiaits that prenuses, where petitioner is residiag was under adiniaistarative control of BSP and Estate Officer appoiated was conipetent to pass the order for eviction under fhe provisions of Public Preiaises (Eviction of Unautiionzed Occupaats) Act, 1971. The dispute relatiag to ownership and control of HSCL & BSP inay be interaal dispute betaveen HSCL & BSP but should not be dispute between retired employee of HSCL & BSP, ^ ^^ 9. Definitely, present petitioner is retired einployee of BSP, WhUe passiag fhe order of eviction by Estate Officer or dismissiag fhe appeal, bofh the authorities have not comniitted any iUegality requiring aay iaterference ia exercise of supervisoiy jurisdiction. Consequeutiy, petition is Uable to be dismissed aad is hereby dismissed. However, considering tiie facts fhat petitioner is in possession of fhe accommodation premises after his retirement which was aUotted to him when he was employee of HSCL, Considering fhe aforcsaid facts if petitioner gives undertakiag for vacation of fhe preinises on or before 60 days before Estate Officer fhen petitioner shaU not be evicted froini his premises on or before 60 days frora today. No order as to costs, T.P.Sharma Judge /A- INN^^