Amitava Lal, J. - (1.) According to the writ petitioner, he is a licensee in respect of plot of land under the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation. Such license was time to time extended. Last of such extension will be ending on 31st December, 2007. The land was uneven and covered with bushes and trees etc. It was totally unfit for use. Since the request of the petitioner to provide certain basic facilities, amenities/regarding water supply, electricity etc., was not entertained, the same was developed by the petitioner himself at his cost and expenses. The petitioner normally booking such place from third parties for providing them to use the place for ceremonial functions. Several bookings between the periods from 22nd November 2004 and 27th June, 2005 are already existing. Since the petitioner occupied the uneven land which was subsequently converted to a habitable property for making ceremonial programmes etc. with all facilities and amenities, the petitioner accrued right of land under Section 60 of Indian Easement Act 1882. The petitioner accepted all the terms and conditions put by the respondent authorities and deposited increased rental charges etc., and also ready to give further security, if any, in spite of investment of Rs. 8 lacs which is either to be refunded or adjusted. But without any show cause notice or opportunity of, hearing, the respondent No. 5 suddenly put padlock on the gate of the premises in question. As a result whereof the petitioner's right to carry out business has been seriously affected. He invoked the writ jurisdiction to allow him to book such place for holding functions of the third parties. Applications dated 24.5.2002 and 6.6.2002 are made for the purpose. Further prayed not to allow the respondents to interfere with the possession of the petitioner.
(2.) On the other hand the respondent contended that the petitioner is not at all a licensee under the authority concern. He can, at best, be called as booking agent for the purpose of allowing third party to occupy the premises temporarily but not more than 15 days period for the purpose of holding marriage ceremony etc., under the permission/license/contract exists in between them and the petitioner up to 31st December 2002. If any, third party agreement is executed or any arrangement is made to occupy such premises beyond the period, the same is at the risk and responsibility of the petitioner. The authority is not responsible for the same. Moreover, this particular land is yearmarked for setting up "Model Training Institute on Driving and Research" of the Stale. Both the Central and State Governments are eager to install the same by the side of the High way as per the approved project report of the Government of India, Ministry of Transport Road Transport and High Ways (Safety Cell). He further contended that the nature of the dispute does not prescribe that the same will be adjudicated by the writ court.
(3.) We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties last couple of days. According to us in a conflict between public and private necessities, public necessity is to be declared superior to private by applying the test of Necessitas publica major est quam privata. We are definite that there are sufficient materials to meet the requirement of public necessity. From the annexures to the Supplementary affidavit of the respondents not only we find site map, plan for driving centre etc. but also the entire project report for setting up "Model Training Institute on Driving and Research" approved by the appropriate ministry of Government of India. Those annexures possess several materials in coming to an appropriate conclusion in favour of public necessity or likelihood thereof. Therefore, the first question would be whether petitioner's case can override the case of the respondents as regards public necessity or not? From the writ petition we are unable to come such conclusion. No express agreement for license is available to satisfy the prima facie test. Annexed copies of documents in the writ petition and rejoinder neither impress us about existence of valid license agreement between the parties nor for construction of promissory estoppel. Element of legitimate expectation, if any, is so insignificant that the same cannot override the public necessity at all.;