Serious view taken, order quashed to avoid repercussions
Mohinder Verma
JAMMU, Nov 9: In a very peculiar case Principal District Judge has set-aside the judgment of the High Court by exceeding jurisdiction and in order to avoid serious repercussions of the same Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal has quashed the order/judgment for being not sustainable in the eyes of law.
The upsetting of the order of the High Court by the then Principal District Judge Jammu came to the fore in a petition filed by Director, Estates Department and Deputy Director Estates Jammu whereby challenge was thrown to the order/judgment dated October 31, 2013 passed by Principal District Judge Jammu.
In a writ petition titled Avtar Krishan Bhat Versus State of J&K and Others, the High Court vide Order dated 14.03.2012 had directed the respondents (Estates Department) to allow the petitioner to occupy the Government accommodation for a period of four months from the date of order and to vacate the same thereafter. Further direction was issued to the petitioner to pay arrear of rent.
Though the Estates Department handed over the vacant possession of quarter in question to the petitioner but the petitioner did not deposit the arrears of rent which were to be deposited in terms of the direction passed by the High Court. Consequently, the Estates Department sent a rent notice to the respondent.
The order was challenged by Avtar Krishan before the court of District Judge, Jammu by way of appeal and the District Judge passed interim direction on 14.06.2012 directing maintenance of status quo.
The Estates Department approached the High Court challenging the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Jammu on various grounds. It was submitted that Principal District Judge, Jammu by way of the order impugned has set aside the judgment of High Court, restrained the Estates Department from evicting the respondent without considering the facts in its correct perspective and did not appreciate that the scope of the powers of the appellate court under Section 12 of the J&K Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1988 is very limited and is confined to the examination as to whether due process of law has been adopted and whether the provisions of the Act have been followed.
After hearing both the sides, High Court observed, “this is a very peculiar case where the Principal District Judge, Jammu by virtue of order impugned dated 31.10.2013 has set aside the judgment of the higher court—High Court whereby this court disposed of the writ petition filed by Avtar Krishan by permitting him to remain in occupation for a period of four months from the date of order and vacate the same thereafter besides directing him to pay arrears of rent, if any, and also rent for next four months which is beyond the jurisdiction of the court below”.
“Even otherwise also, the order impugned has been passed by the Principal District Judge, Jammu in exercise of powers under Section 12 of the Act of 1988 against the notice dated 24.4.2012 which cannot be construed as an order of eviction of respondent”, High Court further said, adding “respondent instead of complying with the directions issued by the Deputy Director Estates, Jammu has rushed to the appellate court and filed the appeal on false and flimsy grounds after having availed the remedy before this court”.
High Court further observed, “appellate court while passing the impugned judgment has quashed the impugned communication dated 24.4.2012 by exceeding its jurisdiction and in a way upsetting the order passed by a higher court by restraining the petitioners from evicting the respondent from Govt accommodation by passing a blanket restraint order which is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the said order is in direct conflict with the order passed by this court”.
“From a bare perusal of the regulations framed by the Government and also the provisions of Civil Services Regulation, it is manifestly clear that a Govt employee on his retirement can retain Govt accommodation for a period of one month and thereafter, he has no right whatsoever to retain the same. Moreover, the Govt employee has no right to retain Govt accommodation has already been set at rest by the Apex Court”, High Court said.
“The order passed by the appellate court even otherwise is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the scope of power of the appellate court is very limited and confined to the examination as to whether due process of law has been adopted and whether the provisions of the Act of 1988 has been followed”, Justice Nargal said, adding “the appellate court has not only exceeded its jurisdiction by upsetting the order passed by the higher court but has also issued directions by quashing the impugned communication dated 24.4.2012, as if, the appellate court is exercising the power as a writ court exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India”.
Stating that the order impugned if permitted to remain as it is and operative would have far reaching consequences and serious repercussions, High Court, while exercising the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has set aside the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Jammu with the direction to the respondent to vacate the Government Quarter No. 13-F Company Bagh and to pay rent for the premises under his unauthorized occupation with effect from 01.04.2011 till the date of vacation of premises at the rate of Rs 2,500 per month as per Govt Order No. 210 EST of 2000 dated 22.08.2000 strictly in conformity with the order passed by this court in OWP No. 345/2012.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
