Civil Writ Petition No. 3320 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- Civil Writ Petition No. 3320 of 2008 Date of decision: 22.12.2008 Baba Inder singh ........Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner-cum-Commissioner, Amritsar and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.S.Khehar Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Bikramjit Arora, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Parveen Chander Goyal, Addl. A.G. Punjab for respondent -.- J.S.Khehar , J. (Oral) Respondent No. 3 i.e. Sub Division Engineer, Central Works Sub Division No. 6, PWD (B&R) Branch Amritsar, filed an application for the eviction of the petitioner under Sections 5 and 6 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred as the Public Premises Act ) before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Amritsar-I, in 2004. On account of the lapses at the hands of respondent No. 3 either in entering appearance, or in producing evidence before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Amritsar-I, the application filed by respondent No. 3, was dismissed for non-prosecution on 21.07.2005. Respondent No. 3 filed an application for restoration of the aforesaid ejectment application. However, the same was also dismissed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Civil Writ Petition No. 3320 of 2008 2 Amritsar I, by the order dated 16.11.2005. Aggrieved with the orders dated 21.07.2005 and 16.11.2005, referred to hereinabove, respondent No. 3 preferred an appeal under Section 9 of the Public Premises Act, praying for restoration of the ejectment application before the Sub Divisional Magistrate Amritsar-I. By the impugned order dated 25.09.2007, the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar exercising the powers of the Commissioner under the Public Premises Act, ordered the restoration of the application filed by respondent No. 3 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Amritsar-I. The orders dated 25.09.2007 (Annexure P-7) is subject matter of challenge at the hands of learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court. The solitary contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is based on the permissibility at the hands of the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar, while exercising the powers of the Commissioner under the Public Premises Act, to order the restoration of the case dismissed for non-prosecution by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Amritsar-I on 21.07.2005, as also the order dated 16.11.2005, by which the application for restoration thereof was also dismissed by the same authority. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the application disposed of on merit under Section 5 of the Public Premises Act, can only be subject matter of appeal under section 9 of the Public Premises Act. Sections 5 and 9 of the Public Premises Act, are being extracted hereunder:- “ Section- 5. Eviction of unauthorized persons:- (1) If, after considering the cause if any, shown by any person Civil Writ Petition No. 3320 of 2008 3 in pursuance of a notice under section 4 and any evidence he may produce in support of the same and after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard, the Collector is satisfied that the public premises are in unauthorized occupation, the Collector may make an order of eviction, for reasons to be recorded therein, the Collector may make an order of eviction, for reasons to be recorded therein, directing that the public premises shall be vacated, on such date as may be specified in the order, by all persons who may be in occupation thereof or any part thereof and cause a copy of the order to be affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises or of the estate in which the public premises are situate. (2) If any person refuses or fail to comply with the order of eviction within thirty days of the date of its publication under sub section, (I), the Collector or any other officer duly authorized by him in this behalf may evict that person from, and take possession of, the public premises and may, for that purpose, use such force as may be necessary. Section 9 -Appeals :- (1) An appeal shall lie from every order of the Collector made in respect of any public premises under section 5 or section 7 to the Commissioner.” (2) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be preferred - (a) in the case of an appeal from an order under section 5, Civil Writ Petition No. 3320 of 2008 4 within thirty days from the date of publication of the order under sub-section (1) of that section; and (b) in the case of an appeal from an order under section 7, within thirty days from the date on which the order is communicated to the appellant : Provided that the Commissioner may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filling the appeal in time. (3) Where an appeal is preferred from an order of the Collector, the Commissioner may stay the enforcement of that order for such period and on such conditions as he deems fit. (4) Every appeal under this section shall be disposed of by the Commissioner as expeditiously as possible. (5) The costs of any appeal under this section be in the discretion of the Commissioner.” A perusal of Section 9 reveals that an appeal shall lie from every order of the Collector made in respect of any public premises under Sections 5 or 7 to the Commissioner. It is not a matter of dispute, that the orders dated 21.07.2005 and 16.11.2005, were passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Amritsar-I in furtherance of the application filed under Sections 5 and 6 of the Public Premises Act by respondent No. 3. Thus viewed, we are satisfied, that the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar, exercising the powers of the Commissioner under the provisions of Public Premises Act, was fully competent to entertain an appeal against the orders Civil Writ Petition No. 3320 of 2008 5 dated 21.07.2005 and 16.11.2005, as an appellate authority. In view of the above, we find no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. [J.S.Khehar] Judge [Nirmaljit Kaur] Judge December 22, 2008 mohan