IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.989 of 2005 RAM JANAM SINGH Son of Sri Rajeshwar Singh, resident of village: Pali, PS Belaganj, District Gaya. Versus 1. .UNION OF INDIA 2. Sri M. S. Mann, the Commandant, Army Supply Core Centre, South Bangalor—7. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate For the Union of India: Mr. Binod Kumar ACGSC ************* 2 06-02-2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Union of India. Petitioner is a retired Havildar from Army Service. The decision of the authorities to recover damage rate of rent was approved by the Division Bench of this court in LPA no. 1064/2004 as appears from order dated 2.11.2004 contained in annexure-1. However, on appreciation of all the relevant facts the Division Bench gave opportunity to the petitioner who was the appellant in the LPA to file a representation before the authority concerned who was directed to consider such representation. The Division Bench also observed that if the authority finds that it had come to the notice of the authority in July, 1996 that the appellant is in unauthorized occupation in that case the appellant will be liable to pay damage rate of rent only for the period up to the date of issuance of notice for vacating the quarter within one month. The Division Bench was of the view that once the authorities came to know that the accommodation was in unauthorized occupation it was their fault to have waited for about two years to take possession of the locked accommodation. This was in the light of the - 2 - fact that the petitioner had already retired from service and according to him he had not even received notice for vacating the quarter as he was staying at his village home in Bihar. The representation of the petitioner has been disposed of by an order passed on 12.1.2005 which has been annexed as annexure-A to the show cause. A careful reading of the said order discloses that the authority has not denied that petitioner was given a notice to vacate the said accommodation on 22.7.1996. Even the show cause does not dispute the factum of notice in July, 1996. Hence, it is clear that it had already come to the notice of the concerned authority in July, 1996 that the petitioner was found to be in unauthorized occupation. In that view of the matter according to Division Bench order contained in annexnre-1 the petitioner was liable to damage rate of rent only for the period up to the issuance of notice for vacating the quarter, i.e., up to 22.7.1996. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the representation of the petitioner should have been allowed to the extent indicated by the Division Bench and petitioner should have been charged damage rate of rent from 15.7.1994 till 22.7.1996. He has wrongly been charged damage rate of rent up to 29.4.1998. The damage rate of rent for the period after 22.7.1996 up to 29.4.1998 should be treated by the respondent authorities to have been wrongly realized from the petitioner and, accordingly, it should be paid back to the petitioner without any delay and in any case within two months from the date of production/communication of a copy of this order. The contempt application is finally disposed of. If for any - 3 - reason the respondents do not comply with this order then the petitioner would be at liberty to file another application for contempt. BKS/ (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.) (J. N. Singh, J.)