CALVIN JACOB Vs. COLLECTOR OF MADRAS ACCOMMODATION CONTROLLER CHEPAUK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Writ petition is for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the proceedings of the 1st respondent in X-1/81722/92 dated 11.6.93 and to direct the respondents to transfer the licence of the building bearing door No. 67, Hunters Road, Choolai, Madras in favour of the petitioner's wife Tmt. Chandra Hannah.

(2.) THE petitioner, who is a practising advocate of this Court and who had been the City Public Prosecutor for about four years and Special Public Prosecutor in certain specific cases till 1991, has been allotted Door No. 67, Hunters Road, Choolai, Madras and has been in occupation of the same ever since 1970. It is alleged in the affidavit filed in support of this petition/the petitioner had made a request to the first respondent to transfer the licence of occupation of the said building in the name of his wife Smt. Chandra Hannah as she became a Government servant by virtue of G.O.Ms. No. 131 Education, dated 1.2.91 treating the staff of the Education Department of Corporation of Madras as Government servants. In the meanwhile, the first respondent herein has passed the impugned order negativing the request of the petitioner holding that the wife of the petitioner, who is working in the Corporation of Madras, cannot be treated as a Government Servant. THEreupon the petitioner has preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent and the same is pending before the 2nd respondent. Since the petitioner has been given time till 10.9.1993 and as the appeal preferred by the petitioner is pending on the file of the 2nd respondent, apprehending eviction, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with the abovesaid prayer.

(3.) I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned-Government Advocate. On a perusal of the entire materials placed before this court and on a consideration of the impugned order, I am of the view, that the petitioner is not entitled to continue to be in occupation of the premises in question, especially after the termination of his office as City Public-Prosecutor or Special Public Prosecutor. Whether the petitioner who had been allotted to occupy the said building, when he was functioning as City Public Prosecutor, is a Government servant or is holding the public office as such, is a different thing, which need not be gone into in this case. But admittedly he is not holding the office of any Prosecutor for Government now. In matters of appointment of the Government Pleaders or Government Counsel, in Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P. AIR1991 S.C. 537 the Supreme Court has held that: