Ajab Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

Ajab Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, should interfere with the impugned orders directing the petitioner to vacate the official residential accommodation and proposing disciplinary action. +1 more

Court's answer

This Court, in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, does not find any good ground, particularly on equity, in the circumstances, to interfere with the impugned orders.

Ratio / Principle

The fact that the petitioner is unauthorizedly occupying official quarters allotted to him, which he is no longer held entitled to retain, certainly amounts to misconduct.

Key takeaways

So far as forcible eviction of the petitioner is concerned, the respondents may have to take recourse to the provisions of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 or such other remedies that the law provides, including approaching the Court of competent Civil Jurisdiction.obiter¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Court No. 33), WRIT - A No. 17704 of 2023, Order Date 18.10.2023, Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J. — Ajab Singh, an Assistant (ministerial hand), occupied House No. B-45 (Ground Floor), Alok Nagar, NTPC, Diviyapur, District Auraiya, accommodation meant for employees of the Junior Engineer cadre. The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Auraiya, by orders dated 18.03.2023, 05.04.2023, 27.06.2023 and 04.07.2023 directed him to vacate on the ground of ineligibility and proposed disciplinary action upon his refusal. Held: unauthorized occupation of official quarters which the occupant is no longer held entitled to retain certainly amounts to misconduct; while forcible eviction would require recourse to the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 or other remedies provided by law, including a court of competent civil jurisdiction, no good ground, particularly on equity, exists in writ jurisdiction to interfere with the impugned orders. Petition dismissed; no order as to costs.

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:202216

Court No. - 33

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17704 of 2023

Petitioner :- Ajab Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at length and Mr. A. B. Sinha, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3.

The petitioner was allotted House No. B-45 (Ground Floor) Alok Nagar, NTPC, Diviyapur, District Auraiya where he is employed as an Assistant. By the orders impugned dated 18.03.2023, 05.04.2023, 27.06.2023 and 04.07.2023 passed by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Auraiya, he has been directed to vacate the residential accommodation on ground that he is not eligible for the same. The accommodation in his possession and earlier allotted to him is meant for an employee of the cadre of Junior Engineer whereas the petitioner is an Assistant, a ministerial hand. The petitioner has refused to vacate the accommodation and by the impugned orders, disciplinary action has been proposed to be taken if he does not vacate the accommodation.

Before this Court learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been lawfully allotted the accommodation by a Competent Authority and if the respondents think that the petitioner is ineligible and cannot continue in occupation of the official accommodation, they would have to evict him by taking recourse to the provisions of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.

It is true that so far as forcible eviction of the petitioner is concerned, the respondents may have to take recourse to the provisions of the Act last mentioned or such other remedies, that the law provides, including approaching the Court of competent Civil Jurisdiction. But, the fact that the petitioner is unauthorizedly occupying official quarters allotted to him, which he is no longer held entitled to retain certainly amounts to misconduct.

This Court in the exercise of our writ jurisdiction do not find

any good ground, particularly, on equity, which appears in the circumstances, to interfere with the impugned orders.

This petition fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Order Date :- 18.10.2023 Vijay

Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KUMAR SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad