Case: Fonseca Private Limited &amp; Others Vs. L.C. Gupta &amp; Others

3. The impugned order dated December 18, 1971 which was addressed to M/s. Fonseca Pvt. Ltd. through its Directors and to other persons mentioned in the order is as follows :"Whereas I, L. C. Gupta,, Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Works and Housing, am satisfied that the premises known asn Singh Road, New Delhi is a public premises as defined under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971; andWhereas I am satisfied that the said premises are required in connection with the defence of India and civil defence; andWhereas I am satisfied that you are in unauthorised occupation as defined under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 in the said premisesL. C. GuptaDeputy Secretary to the Government of India,Ministry of Works and Housing."Rule 155 of the Defence of India Rules, to the extent it is material, may next be reproduced :Rule 155 (1). Eviction of unauthorised persons from public premises.Where the Central Government is of opinion that any public premises as defined in the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), are required for any purpose connected with the defence of India and civil defence, the public safety or interest, the efficient conduct of military operations or the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the life of the community, and the Central Government is satisfied that such premises are in unauthorised occupation as defined in that Act, the Central Government may, after recording the reasons for such satisfaction, make an order of eviction directing that the public premises shall be vacated by all persons who may be in occupation thereof or of any part thereof within such period as may be specified in the order(2) If any person refuses or fails to comply with the order of eviction within the period specified therein, any officer authorised by the Central Government in this behalf (hereafter in this Rule referred to as the authorised officer) may evict that person from, and take possession of the public premises and may for that purpose use such force as may be necessary(3) . . . . . . . . . . .(4) . . . . . . . . . . .(5) If any person does not vacate the public premises in compliance with an order made undere (1), such person shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both(6) . . . . . . . . . . . ."

Reasoning:
6. In our judgment it is wholly unnecessary to decide in these proceedings the above question as also certain other contentions which were raised by Mr. Sen relating to the applicability of the rule of natural justice even to proceedings under Rule 155 of the Defence of India Rules and the necessity for communication of the order made under that Rule. Mr. Nariman quite properly chose not to go back on the concession which had been made before the High Court that ShriL. C.Guptawho had made the impugned order under Rule 155 had no authority whatsoever to exercise the powers of the Central Government. It is the Central Government alone that is empowered to make an order under that Rule and under the Rules of Business it would be the Minister or the Officer empowered thereby who alone could exercise those powers in the name of the President, ShriL. C.Guptaadmittedly having no such power the order made by him was wholly illegal, ineffective and void.Such an order on the face of it deserved to be quashed and ought to have been quashed on that ground alone by the High Court without deciding the other points some of which are sub judice in proceedings under Act 40 of 1971.