Kailash Gambhir, J. - (1.) BY this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks directions to set aside the order dated 04.05.2009 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Delhi. The Petitioner also seeks direction to quash the office orders dated 19.11.2008 and 25.02.2009 passed by the Respondent.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner had never raised any sort of unauthorized construction in the Govt. quarter bearing No. C -34, Type -I, Kilokari, New Delhi which was allotted in his favour on account of his employment with the Respondent. Counsel also submits that the Petitioner had not erected any 'jhuggi' adjacent to his said govt. quarter, as many such 'jhuggies' were raised by various unauthorized jhuggi dwellers surrounding the govt. quarters. Counsel for the Petitioner also submits that in fact the land on which the jhuggies were raised is not owned by the Respondent, as in LCA No. 116/2001 the learned Labour Court held that the land in question did not belong to the Respondent but belonged to the Slum and J.J department. Counsel also submits that the Petitioner was prevented from appearing before the Estate Officer due to bonafide reasons. The Petitioner, while on duty on 12.04.2007, received serious injuries and part of his body was burnt including his hands and fists. Counsel further submits that it was only after the Petitioner had recovered from his injuries that he could contact his counsel Mr. P.S. Tomar, but was told by his son that Mr. P.S. Tomar had already expired on 13.03.2008. Counsel thus submits that non -appearance of the Petitioner and his counsel before the Estate Officer was neither intentional nor deliberate but due to above bonafide reasons. Counsel also submits that no evidence was led by the Respondent before the Estate Officer to prove that the Petitioner was an unauthorized occupant in respect of the said govt. quarter. Counsel thus states that in the absence of any material on record, the learned Estate Officer wrongly passed the eviction order under Sub -section (1) of Section 5 and order for recovery of damages under Sub -section (2) and (2A) of Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. Refuting the said submissions of counsel for the Petitioner, counsel for the Respondent submits that the Petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 17.01.2002 on the ground that he had constructed a tin shed over the courtyard of the said govt. quarter bearing No. C -34, Type -I, Kilokari, New Delhi and also erection of four jhuggies by the Petitioner surrounding the said govt. quarter. Counsel further submits that vide order dated 16.09.2008 the allotment of the Petitioner in respect of the said govt. quarter was cancelled and the said cancellation order became final as no challenge thereto was made by the Petitioner. Counsel further submits that even before the Estate Officer, the Petitioner did not choose to appear and, therefore, now before the writ court the Petitioner cannot be heard to say that he was an authorized occupant of the said govt. quarter or his allotment was illegally cancelled by the Respondent. Counsel for the Respondent also submits that once the allotment of the Petitioner was cancelled by the Respondent, the onus was upon the Petitioner to have proved before the learned Estate Officer that he was an authorized occupant in respect of the said govt. quarter. Counsel further submits that enough material was placed on record by the Respondent before the Estate Officer and based on the said material only the Estate Officer had passed the eviction order under Section 5 of the Public Premises Act. Counsel for the Respondent further submits that the Petitioner has failed to point out as to how the orders passed by the courts below are illegal and perverse.
(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.;