Bholu Singh Vs Union of India & Anr.

“(a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus thereby setting Aside impugned Order/ notice dated 09.09.2025 passed by the respondent no.2, i.e. Ld. Estate Officer, under Section 5A of the Public Premises Eviction Act, 1971 in an arbitrary, illegal, ultra-vires and impromptu manner;

¶13

(b) Issue appropriate Writ directing the respondent no.2 to issue fresh show cause notice under section 5 A PPE Act, 1971 and to provide opportunity of being heard/proper hearing in terms of well established principle of natural justice without any premeditated mind set, in the interest of justice and fair play;

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/10/2025 at 14:35:25

¶16

(c) Issue an appropriate Writ thereby restraining the respondent no.l-department from taking any detrimental action against the petitioner till the proper/ personal hearing is provided to the petitioner and an order is passed by the respondent no.2 thereafter, in the interest of justice and fairplay. ”

¶17

As per petitioner the respondent no.2 had issued a notice dated 19.06.2025 under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 ( PP Act ), whereby the petitioner was asked to show cause why an order of eviction should not be made against him. In response thereto, the petitioner had filed a reply and which, according to the petitioner, has been duly received by the respondents.

¶18

It is the case of the petitioner that, though, as per the said notice dated 19.06.2025, as also in terms of Section 4 of the PP Act, the petitioner was called upon for personal hearing on 04.07.2025 before the learned Estate Officer/ respondent no.2, however, on the said date of hearing, the petitioner was not allowed to enter the office of respondent no.2. As such, as per learned counsel for petitioner, the petitioner was denied the mandatory personal hearing as well as the opportunity to produce evidence to substantiate his claim made in his reply to the said notice.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that based solely on the reply to the aforesaid Show Cause Notice, since the respondent no.2 has proceeded to pass the impugned order/ notice dated 09.09.2025, the same is void ab initio . He further submits that respondent no.2 vide the impugned notice dated 09.09.2025 had not only issued the show cause notice but also proceeded to hold that “... ...in the event of your refusal or

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/10/2025 at 14:35:25

¶22

failure to comply with this notice within the period specified above, the said goods/ animal, cattle/ work, etc. shall be removed by the undersigned in the capacity of Estate Officer or any other officer authorized by the undersigned and the cost of such removal shall be recovered from you as arrears of land revenue.” Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner does not have sufficient time to present his case before the learned Estate Officer.

¶23

Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner, while handing over the copy of the order dated 26.09.2025 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) 15190/2025 titled ‘ Satish Kumar Ujjain Vs. Union of India & Anr’. , urges this Court for passing the similar order wherein this Court under similar facts and circumstances, after issuing notice, has already stayed the impugned order therein, till the next date of hearing.

¶24

Issue notice. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents accepts notice. He, upon instructions, submits that without going into the merits of the matter as also without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondents, respondent no.2 shall issue a fresh Show Cause Notice to the petitioner within a period of three weeks in lieu of the aforesaid impugned order/ notice dated 09.09.2025.

¶25

In response thereto, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in such a situation he does not wish to press the present petition and seeks to withdraw the same, albeit , with liberty to initiate appropriate action(s) in accordance with law with respect to subsequent steps taken by the respondents.

¶26

At this stage, learned counsel for respondents, upon instructions,

¶27

This is a digitally signed order.

¶28

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/10/2025 at 14:35:25

¶29

submits that respondent no.2 shall, without adverting to the merits involved, issue a fresh Show Cause Notice to all the 1140 occupants of the said premises.

¶30

Needless to say, the parties shall take all actions in accordance with law. Also, in view of the aforesaid situation the respondents are directed not to take/ initiate any adverse steps qua implementation and/ or enforcement of the said impugned order/ notice dated 09.09.2025 till the final outcome of the fresh order/ notice issued by the respondent no.2.

¶31

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

¶32

SAURABH BANERJEE, J.

¶33

OCTOBER 06, 2025/NA

¶34

This is a digitally signed order.

¶35

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/10/2025 at 14:35:25

Bholu Singh v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bholu Singh v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Sharda Vs Union of India and Anr.

Mrs. Poonam Vs Managing Society National Public School & Ors.

Union of India & Anr. Vs Ayodhya Prasad

Mrs. Rashmi Sharma Vs Managing Society National Public School & Ors.

Sheeraj Projects Private Limited Vs National Highways Authority of India

Sheeraj Projects Private Limited Vs National Highways Authority of India

Hari Narain Aggarwal Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi through Its Chief Secretary & Ors.

Dr. Sana Rafi Vs Jamia Millia Islamia

Sanjay & Anr. Vs Mohd Yunus

Krishan Kumar Batra Vs Mahesh Tulsiani, Director Tulsiani Construction & Developers Ltd.

Madan Lal Vs Mohd Yunus

Joginder Kumar Vs Union of India & Anr.

Ravinder Vs Union of India & Anr.