A^^- ^-oT-^0^6 ^'^^^ i^!^^ f^;i^< HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGWW AT BILASPUR W.P.No.622ttOOO CORAM:^-Hon'ble Shri S.R.Na^kTcT & Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS 1. State of M.P., through the Secretary, Govt. of M.P., Water Resourees Department, Vattabh Bhawan, Bhopal, (M.P.) 2. The Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Pariyojna, Water Resources Department, Raipur, (M.P.) 3. The Executive Engineer, Water Resourees Division, Raipur, (M.P.) 4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Water Management Sub Division, No.4, Raipur, (M.P.) VERSUS 1. Karamchand ^rawaf, aged 40 years S/o Late Shri Lalkishan Chand Agrawal Sub Engineer, Water Resourees Sub Division No.1, Raipur (M.P.) R/o Qtr.No.G-15, Imgation Colony, Shanfl Nagar, Raipur (M.P.) 2. M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Raipurthrough its Regtstrar. Present:- Shri Vinay Harit, Deputy Advocate General for the Petitioners/State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 24th July, 2006) The foilowing oral order of the Court was passed by S.R.NAYAK, C.J. We are of the considered opinion <ftat in the (acts and ^ircumstances of the case, there is absolutely no justiflcation for the State .( :li ^ S21 94 -^ l^ Govt. and its authorities to prefer this Writ Petition under Articte 227 of ConstituUon of India against the order of M.P. Administrative Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal") dated 25-10-1999 made in OANo.1146/1998, which order, in our considered opinion, is just and eguitable and does not warrant any interference. 2. The relevant facts, in brief, are as follows: In the year 1996, the firet respondent namety Karamchand Agrawal was holding the post of Sub Engineer in the Water Resources Oepartnent and he was residing in a rented house in Raipur city. It appears that fte landlord wanted the said premises for his own use and occupation. He was pressurizing the first respondent to vacate the same. That led to the first respondent making a request to his immediate superiors to allot him a 'G' type govt. quarter in Raipur to whlch he was entiUed. According to the first respondent, the immediate superiore informed the first respondent that there was some technical difficulty to pass alloftnent order immediately, but, he could occupy one ofthe manyvacant 'G' type houses then avaitable foroccupation. Accordingly, the first respondent occupted one of the vacant 'G' type govemment quarters under information to hjs immediate superior officer, as could be seen from the Annexure P-2. The first respondent furthermore requested the concerned authorities to regularize his occupation of 'G' type government quarter by passing appropriate altotment order. It is also seen from the records ttrat in pursuance of the above request of the first respondent, his superior officer recommended to the competent authority to allot a 'G' type flovernment quarter. It is atso a matter of record that the salary paying authorify was deducting rent and water charges wift regard to the "G' type quarter occupied by the first respondent from his salary regulariy. When 95 @I';3^1i;iitiSiB^ S|*i!saB;]«' the matter stood thus, the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Raipur issued an order on 19-05-1^8 which reads as follows:- RtKim'rti y<»<"i 4" <si'^R'*ii<n« <HlSi<t»i41. uTcf ^raer W*TTIT ^w^-4 ^rey. ^ 'qJ^td f^ t fc aiTq^ 3.11.1996 ^ <SI*tl{£|<^<T ^T ^ SfWG 'fS ^Traa uft—15ff ^ain fe^ §<? 11 ^'tiRi^ qraR ^ ^ f^Erra ^ ^r ^n^ Ra<i<<i 17407- ^. ^g 8/—V: ^Scf ^<? 8/—^. ^IcT ^5^ ^d ^irt 1756/- ^ 1^'Hra ^ ^etift qft vTrgl 11/oe ^ 4/98 d^ ^d 18 ^II? ^cT 31.608/- ^ q^cft 40 R>!idT ^' 1GR^^ •Tl? 790/- ^. tmT arfim f^cf 794/—^. ^ (Sotsl ^ q^cft tft ull^*n I ?mT TffS l^ 98 ^ 1756/- ^. y^ife 1IS ^T ^ •frdrfl ^t ufltlft | S[Q: ^q^raf 3. It appears that after issuance of Annexure A-6, the Executhre Engineer, finding some errors in calculation, issued two corrigendums marked as Annexures A-7 & A-8 dated 08-06-19% & 01-08-1998 respectivety. 4. The first respondent feeling aggrieved by the Orders Annexure A-6, A-7 and A-8 instituted O.A.No.1146/1998 praying for quashing of those orders (Annexure A-6 to A-8). In support of his prayer, the petitioner had set out the facts to which reference has been made by us supra. The O.A. was contested by the Department by flling reply. The only contention raised in the reply, as defence, is that the first respondent unauthorisedly occupied the Govt. quarter without authority and without intimation to the department. The Tribunal without finding any merit in the defence and 96 -Ll opining that tn the facts and circumstances, Fundamenlat Rules 45(b) has no apptlcation, allowed the Applicatfon and quashed the orders Annexure A-6 to A-8 with costs fixed at Rs.300/-. Hence, thisWrit peUtion by the State Govt. and its authorities. 5. We have heard leamed Dy. Advocate General for the State and Its authorities. Although the first respondent was served with notice, he remains unrepresented. It was contended by the learned Dy. Advocate General that admittedly without there being any allotonentorder, the flret respondent had occupied govemment quarter G-15, and therefore, he te liable to pay penal rent and in that view of the matter, no exception could be taken to the demand made in Annexure A-6and Annexure A/7 and A/8. 6. Having heard teamed Dy. Advocate General and perused the material papers appended to the writ petition, the only question that arises for decision is whether the action of the ExecuUve Engineer, Wator Resources, Division Raipur, the 3 petitioner herein, seeking to recover penal rent from the first respondent at Uie rate of Rs.1788/- per month as penal rent isjustified and legal. 7. In whatever area or domain the State and State Authorities operate or function, their action is liable to be rewewed on the touch-stone of Article 14 postulates i.e. reasonableness, faimess and non-arbitrariness. The basic facts of this case are not in dispute and they are straight- fbrward. The case of the first respondent is that in the month of September 1996, he made a request to ofRcial superiors to atlot a 'G' type 1> 'ii: •£— 97 1ii ^SSSK I'MK-SI.'SS gi'BlEJjg'R^g Government quarter to him for his residence on the ground that his landlord was pressurizing him to vacate the rented house immediately on the ground that the same was required by him fbr his bona ficte use and occupation. It is also not in dispute ttiat the first respondent occupied one of the vacant C3-15 Govemment quarters under intimation to the ofRcial superiors. It is also not in dispute that even after such occupation, the first respondent went on requesting the allotting authority repeatedly to regularize his occupation by issuingallotment order. Above all, the reason which weighed very much with us not to interfere with the order of the Tribunal is the fact that the salary paying authority was deducting the rent as well as water charges from the salary of the first respondent-Officer regularly. If that is the conduct of the State and State Authorities, tt should not lie in the mouth of the third petitioner In the year 1998 to say that fte first respondent was an unauthorized occupant of Govemment quartor. The facte of the case and equities wholeheartedly support the first resporident. Govemment quarters are meant to be allowed for serving officers and employees of the State. It is not that when the flrst respondent occupied the Govemment quarter, he was not serving under the State. The first respondent was badly in need of a Govemment quarter for use and occupation. In that view of the matter, the State was bound ,to allot a suitable quarter to him particularly because at that tlme the quarters were vacant and available for allotment in Raipur c'rty. It is not that even in such circumstance, the first respondent highhandedly and without informina superiors entered the premises and occupied the same. He did it with the oral permission of the superior-ofRcers. Inthefactsand circumstances of the case, we tend to believe the vereion of the first respondent/OfRcer, because, it stands to commonsense. In sueh faet- y l w -6- 98 situation if the State and State Auttiorities recover the penal rent, thelr action will be arbitrary and unreasonable and could not be sustoined on the toueh-stone of Articte 14~postulates. There is absolutely no ground much less good and weighty ground for us to step in under Artlcles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and upset a just and equftableorder made by the Tribunal. 8. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No cosfs. ' Sd/- ChiefJustice glpa lf:( ly^i t.^.t Eil'