Kalidas Mukherjee, J. - (1.) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Challenging the impugned show cause notice dated 15.7.2009 in connection with the proceedings vide F.No. 6/209/EO/DO/3522 dated 16.7.2009 issued by the respondent No. 2 under the provisions of Public premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, asking the petitioner to show cause as to why order of eviction should not be made.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner, in short, is that it is a firm mainly dealing in manufacture of tyres, rebutton of tyres of the motor vehicles. Pursuant to the invitation of the respondent No. 1, the writ petitioner made an application on 22.9.1999 requesting the respondent to allot a shed at Dollygunj Industrial Estate, with a view to starting the aforesaid business there. The allotment order was passed and the possession was delivered on 8.12.1999 vide letter of the Extension Officer of the Directorate of Industries. After taking over the possession, the petitioner found that the shed in question could not be utilized for running the aforesaid business and in this regard requested the respondent who made the assurance to take every possible step. But nothing has been done in this regard by the respondent No. 1. Thereafter, a notice dated 25.6.2001 was issued to the petitioner by the respondent alleging that the petitioner was defaulter in making payment of rent. Subsequently, the petitioner was served with another letter dated 15.3.2002 by the respondent No. 1 claiming arrears of rent from the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 issued a notice dated 6.1.2004 in connection with the proceedings vide case No. 14 of 2003 under the provision of the Act and the petitioner was directed to appear on 20.1.2004. But the said proceeding could not be given effect to. The respondent No. 2 initiated a proceeding vide No. 11 of 2002 dated 30.10.2003. By the Order No. 247 dated 7.3.2007, the respondent No. 1 informed the petitioner that there was non payment of rent and also contravention of other provisions of the agreement and upon termination of the licence, the petitioner shall be treated as trespasser. The petitioner was again surprised when another notice dated 15.7.2009 was served upon him in connection with the eviction case No. 6 of 2009 started by respondent No. 2 herein. This notice dated 15.7.2009 in eviction case No. 6 of 2009 has been challenged in this writ petition. The respondents have filed the affidavit -in -opposition contending, inter alia, that the writ petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of the shed allotted to him by the Director of Industries, Andaman and Nicobar Administration and the writ petitioner is liable to vacate the said premises as the petitioner did not comply with the requirements which are mandatory under the provisions of law and that the writ petitioner was a defaulter in payment of monthly rent in respect of the shed in question. It has further been contended that the petitioner did not execute the agreement with the authority and kept the shed under lock and key since the year 1999 and the authority finding no other alternative was compelled to approach the respondent No. 2 under the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act, 1971 for getting back the possession of the said shed from the writ petitioner, so that the same can be allotted to some other person and/or firm. It has been stated in the affidavit -in -opposition that that Estate Officer, South Andaman served show cause notice upon the writ petitioner, but, the writ petitioner did not turn up.
(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the first case bearing No. 11 of 2002 was started and in that case, no adverse order was passed against the petitioner. It is submitted that the second show cause notice in connection with Case No. 6 of 2009 is bad in law, in as much as, the first proceedings ended in favour of the petitioner and no adverse step was taken against him. It is submitted that under Section 3 of the Act, the Estate Officer is to be appointed by name by way of notification and there is nothing to show that such appointment was made in accordance with Section 3 of the Act. It is submitted that for a few months the rent was not paid and the shed in question is not the government premises and it was allotted to the petitioner by virtue of an agreement. It is submitted that it is a private dispute between the parties. It is submitted that the respondents could seek remedy in the civil Court if, they are so advised. It is submitted that since the allotment was made by virtue of agreement between the parties, it would not come within the purview of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act, 1971.;