Avtar Singh v. Union of India

dated 2L.4.20tI passed by Shri
:l R.K. Gauba, District Judge in exercise of power under
Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised
Occupants) Act.
Ms. Saroha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and his wife are suffering from various serious ailments because of their old age and they
W.P.(C) No. 3890/2011 Page I of7

a v
2011:DHC:19301 t' have been permanently residing with their son Mr. Anil Jeet
Sing who was allotted the Government accommodation which is under their occupation. Counsel further submits that since the petitioner is in occupation of the said
Government accommodation therefore he had right to file an appeal against the order of the learned Estate Officer and also equally has every locus standi to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. Counsel has placed reliance on the relevant Rule permitting sharing of Government accommodation by the parents and other near relatives.
Placing reliance on the said Rule, counsel submits that since the petitioner being a father is sharing accommodation with the allottee and therefore, he has every locus standi to challenge the order passed by the Appellate Court.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the orders passed by the Appellate Court and the learned Estate Officer.
I
,1
.\ i
W.P.(C) No. 3890/2011
)
I
The Government accommodation in question was allotted in the name of AniI Jeet Singh son of the present petitioner, being an employee on the post of Draftsman
Grade-III in the office of Executive Engineer (Electrical) after his appointment on 18.10.1988. The said AniI Jeet Singh had absented himself from the duty w.e.f. 11.6.2007 as no
Ieave was sanctioned by the respondent in his favour and consequently the allotment of the said government accommodation was cancelled by the respondent w.e.f.
1t.6.2007 on account of unauthorized absenteeism of Mr. Anil Jeet Singh from his duty which ultimately resulted in proceedings under Section 4 of the P.P.Act and vide order dated 2.6.2009, the learned Estate Officer had passed the eviction order. The said order of eviction was challenged not by the allottee of the said Government accommodation but by his father Mr. Avtar singh and the appeal filed by him was also dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide order dated 2L.4.201t. f.
(
W.P.(C) No. 38901201'1' Page 3 of7
('
Feeling aggrieved with the said two orders passed by the courts below, the present petitioner has approached this court by way of this writ petition. It is very strange that the allottee against whom the order was passed by the respondent was neither before the learned Estate Officer nor before the Appellate Court. The said allottee has not even preferred to file the present writ petition as again the same has been filed by his father Mr. Avtar Singh who had throughout been challenging the said decision of the respondent. The learned Appellate Court in para 7 of the impugned judgment also obsenred that the appeal has not been filed by the allottee himself and the same has been filed in the name of Mr. Avtar Singh and even no explanation worth the name has been offered by Mr. Avtar Singh as to why the allottee himself did not choose to file the said appeal or to answer the show cause notice served by the learned
Estate Officer. The learned Appellate Court in para 9 of the
? j-\ t
W.P.(C) No. 3890/20LL Page 4of7
{
J impugned order has also observed that when a question was raised during the course of the arguments with regard to the locus standi of Mr. Avtar Singh then an application was moved by the counsel stating that the allottee had issued a letter of authority to his father but the same has been misplaced on account of his old age and iII health. Counsel also stated before the Appellate Court that the said letter of authority would be placed on record as and when available.
Disbelieving the said plea the learned Appellate Court obserued that had there been any letter of authority actually executed and given to the petitioner or his advocate then the same would have been placed on record before the Estate Officer or at least before the Appellate
Court at the earliest possible stage. The petitioner had also taken a plea before the learned Appellate Court that the allottee is a patient of tuberculosis and on this account he has been constrained to absent himself from his official duty.
\ t w.P.(C) No. 3890/2011 Page 5 of7 i
Suffering from any such Oir"ase certainly can prevent the allottee from his personal presence but the same cannot prevent him to at least execute a proper power of attorney or letter of authority in favour of his father. The father certainly under no circumstance can have any locus standi to challenge the order passed by the learned
Estate Officer or the Appellate Court. A writ petition can only be invoked by a person whose legal right has been infringed or violated by the Government or any instrumentality of the Government. The reliance on the said
Government Rule placed by the counsel for the petitioner cannot help the case of the petitioner as the question before this court is not that the father or the mother of the allottee can be allowed to share the said government accommodation but the question before this court is whether they can stay in the said Government accommodation in their independent right, therefore, the said Rule relating to Government accommodation would not be applicable to the facts of the
W.P.(C) No. 3890/2011 Page 6 of7
'jr e a

t present case.
There is no merit in the present petition, accordingly the same is dismissed.
The liberty, however, remains with the son of the petitioner to challenge the orders passed by the learned
Estate Officer and the Appellate Court.

June OL,zOLt mg e
W.P.(C) No. 3890/2011 Page 7 of7
H GAMBHIR, J