D.K.SETH, J. - (1.) THE order dated 30th May, 2001 passed in a proceedings being No. 392 of 2000 under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1971 is under challenge. By the said order while refusing adjournment the Estate Officer has directed collection of evidence by the police authority. Mr. Sen, Learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that the Estate Officer while carrying out an enquiry under the provisions of the said Act under Section (8) is clothed with the trappings of a Civil Court for the purpose of (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; (b) requiring the discovery and production of documents; and (c) any other matter which may be prescribed. He points out that the collection of evidence through police officer is not a matter coming under clause (c) of Section 8 prescribed by Rules. Therefore, the said order for collection of evidence by police officer is wholly outside the jurisdiction of the Estate Officer. He then contends that this also violates the principles of natural justice and equity. Inasmuch as certain evidences are being collected without giving any opportunity to the petitioner and to the prejudice to his defence in, order to help the authority seeking eviction in an advantageous position. Therefore, he contends that the Estate Officer had been partisaned in its approach in respect of the case. Therefore, the order dated 30th May, 2001 should be set aside. He relied on several decisions, Surendra Pal v. Dr. (Mrs.) Saraswati Arora, reported in AIR 1974 SC 1999, S. N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1984, Union of India v. H.P. Chothia, reported in 1978(2) SCC 586 : AIR 1978 SC 1214, The Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. v. The Union of India, reported in AIR 1976 SC 1785, in support of his contention. According to him the authority must give reasons and that in absence of any reason the order cannot be sustained. As it appears from the orders it does not give any reasons at all. He also contends that nowhere in the Act or the Rules any such authority is conferred on the Estate Officer to collect evidence on behalf of the one of the parties to support his case. He then contends that this order was passed on an application for adjournment which could have been refused but upon such an application such an order could not be passed. Therefore, the application should be allowed.
(2.) THE Learned Counsel for the respondents on the other hand contends that Section 4 of the said Act prescribes making of enquiry followed by Sections 5, 6 and 12 which provides for the necessary power and the manner in which the enquiry is to be conducted. According to him while if the Estate officer is of the opinion that there may be someone else in occupation of the public premises, in that event he may make such other occupants parties by giving notice upon them under sub-section (4) of Section (4) and in order to give them an opportunity before any order of eviction is passed against them. He further contends that an order passed for eviction, against any of the parties who might have sublet the premises, should be binding on these persons who are in occupation. Therefore, in order to give opportunity to all those other occupants it is more necessary to give them an opportunity and give them notice in terms of sub-section (4) so as to make opportunity available to all the occupants. Therefore, there is no harm in ascertaining as to who are in occupation of the public premises. This collection of information for forming an opinion for issuing notice will not prejudice the petitioner and is not a party of the enquiry so as to attract the provision of section 8. In any event, even if such materials are collected and any opinion is formed the same can be treated as an evidence, only when the same has passed the test of the process of proving evidence by the respective parties in course of the proceedings. Whether the information gathered would form part of the evidence or not can be tested in the proceedings where opportunity would be given to the petitioner to disprove the materials or contradict the materials. Therefore, this will not prejudice the petitioner in any manner. He had also relied on a decision in Board of Education v. Rice and others, reported in Appeal Cases 179 (sic) at page 182 and sought to follow the principle enunciated therein for the purpose of the present case. He had also submitted that under section 12 the Estate Officer, if has reason to believe that any persons are in unauthorised occupation, the Estate Officer or any other officer authorised by him, may require these persons or any other persons to furnish information relating to the names and other particulars of the persons in occupation of the public premises. Therefore, the exercise of the power in the impugned order flows from Section 12 of the said Act. Therefore, there is nothing in the said order which will require interference by this Court.
(3.) IN reply Mr. Sen had contended that the decision in the Board of Education (supra) deals with completely different subject as it is apparent from the decision itself which by no stretch of imagination could be borrowed and applied in the present context. He also contends that collection of evidence would seriously prejudice his client, therefore, the order should be set aside.;