SHEILA MARGARET SOOTINCK Vs. MEGHALAYA TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against a notice dtd. 21/2/2022, issued under Sec. 3(1) of the Meghalaya Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1980 read with Rule 3 directing the petitioner to show cause as to why an order of eviction be not passed in respect of the premises occupied by the petitioner.

(2.) The main plank of the challenge is that the said impugned notice has been issued by the respondents, inspite of an assurance that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner which had been made in the course of Civil Court proceedings namely T.S. No. 5(H) of 2020 and recorded in order dtd. 11/11/2020; and also order dtd. 22/12/2021, passed in Misc. Case No. 21(H) of 2021 in T.S. No. 20 of 2021, wherein status quo has been directed to be maintained.

(3.) On the part of the respondents, it is contended that, the writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226, as notwithstanding anything else, the Public Premises Act overrides the Rent Control Act, there is no dispute over the title and ownership of the respondent corporation over the premises and further, disputed facts have been brought into play by the petitioner. It has also been contended that pendency of Civil Court proceedings does not preclude the initiation of proceedings under the Public Premises Act.