N.K.Batabyal, J. - (1.) This Civil Order arises out of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and is directed against the judgment in Misc. Appeal No. 87 of 1991 dated 18th May, 1992 affirming the order passed by the Estate Officer, South Eastern Railway, Kharagpur in Eviction Case No. E/80/90/I-III under section 5(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
(2.) The petitioner was given licence by South Eastern Railway through the office of the Chief Hospital Superintendent and Local Health Authority, Kharagpur to manufacture, stock, distribute and exhibit for sale tea, snacks. sweets, meals and other edible foods subject to the conditions us specified under the provisions of the P.F.A. Act, 1954 at Main S.E. Railway Hospital, Kharagpur, Dist. Midnapore from 1st January, 1988 to 31st December, 1988 (Annexure "A" to the writ petition). The petitioner renewed the licence from time to time and deposited requisite fees etc. and carried on his work without any complaint from any quarter. According to the Railway Authority, the appellant petitioner was given a temporary licence for occupation for two years from 17-1-1988 to 16-1-1990 a portion of the building of Main S.E. Railway Hospital, Kharagpur belonging to the Central Government through South Eastern Railway, Kharagpur. During the licence period the appellant petitioners violated some terms and conditions of the said licence agreement on certain grounds. The decision not to extend the period of licence was communicated to the petitioner by a letter dated 17-1-1990 but the petitioner refused to take the said letter and thereafter was given a show cause notice under section 4(2) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short the Act). The copy of the said notice has been marked Annexure "F" to the writ petition. The appellant-writ petitioner submitted a reply to the show cause nonce denying the allegations. There were several dates for hearing the matter before the Estate Officer. It appears from the impugned order that only on 15-5-1991, the petitioner with his lawyer was present and on other occasions, the learned advocate of the petitioner was not present. Then the Estate Officer passed the order under section 5(1) of the act directing the petitioner to vacate the said premises within 15 days of the date of publication of the order.
(3.) An appeal was taken in the Court of the learned District Judge, Midnapore. The Learned Additional District Judge, 4th Court, Midnapore disposed of the appeal affirming the order of the Estate Officer. Against that order the appellant has come before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, mainly on the grounds inter alia, that there was a flagrant error of procedure and that there was violation of principles of natural justice. The application is hotly contested. 3a. Mr. Mahapatra, learned Advocate for the appellant petitioner has submitted that the notice under section 4 of the Act has not been served in the manner provided under sub-sections (3) and (4) of the said section. From a perusal of the notice marked Annexure "F", it appears that the notice contains the grounds as contemplated under the section and it was addressed to the appellant. From the order of the Estate officer, marked Annexure "G", it appears that the appellant appeared before the Estate Officer with his lawyer to offer contest. Therefore, it is obvious that the notice was served upon him. The learned lawyer was present with the appellant at least on one occasion but it does not appear that any plea on the ground of non-service of notice was raised at that stage. On the evidence adduced before him, the Estate Officer was, Satisfied that the appellant was in unauthorised occupation of a public premises and be should be evicted therefrom. The Learned Appellate Court also was satisfied that the show cause notice was issued to the appellant calling upon him to show cause on or before 7-12-90 in the matter. So it cannot be said that the appellant was deprived of the opportunity of being heard before the order was passed against him.;