M.
Satyanandam Vs. Deputy Secretary To The Government of Andhra Pradesh & ANR
[1987] INSC 173 (17 July 1987)
MUKHARJI,
SABYASACHI (J) MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) OZA, G.L. (J)
CITATION:
1987 AIR 1968 1987 SCR (3) 566 1987 SCC (3) 574 JT 1987 (3) 127 1987 SCALE
(2)97
ACT:
Administrative
Law--Release of possession of premises held by Government--Government has power
to review its earlier order by taking subsequent events into consideration.
HEADNOTE:
The
petitioner was an allottee of the premises held by the Government at the
relevant time. The landlady applied for release of the premises but the request
was rejected.
However,
upon a further representation made by the landlady stating that her son was not
allowing her to live with him in another house belonging to her, the Government
made an order releasing the premises in her favour and asked the petitioner to
vacate the premises. Several notices were also issued to him in that behalf.
The petitioner challenged the order of release contending that he had not been
given an opportunity to show cause, and, that the Government had no power to
review its earlier order rejecting the request; but the petition was dismissed
by the High Court.
Dismissing
the petition for Special Leave to appeal.
HELD:
It is well settled law of this Court that in case of bona fide need, subsequent
events must be taken into account if they are relevant to the question of
release of possession of the premises. The contention that the Government
cannot review its own order cannot be accepted. When, in spite of the notices
given to him, the petitioner did not choose to move out of the premises it
cannot be said that he was not given an opportunity to show cause. [567B-C]
Civil
Appellate Jurisdiction: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 7213 of 1987.
From
the Judgment and Order dated 19.5. 1987 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in
W.A. No. 672 of 1987. P.P. Rao and P.P. Singh for the Appellant.
567
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This
petition arises out of the judgment and order of the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh. Sree P.P. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
order of release was bad because the authorised officer had no power to review
the previous order nor he had the power to release the property of the landlady
without even giving an opportunity to the petitioner. In the facts of this case
as noted by the High Court, we are unable to entertain these contentions. We
are unable to accept the contention that the Government cannot review its own
order.
It
is well-settled law of this Court that in case of bona fide need subsequent
events must be taken into account if they are relevant on the question of release
or possession of the premises in question. On a previous occasion the
Government had declined to release the premises, later on .the representation
made by the landlady the Government changed its decision. The landlady had
filed an application for releasing the premises in her favour, but the same was
initially rejected on 25.9.1978. Again the landlady made a further
representation stating certain additional and fresh circumstances, that is to
say, that her son was not allowing her to live with him in another house
belonging to her. The Government took into account the subsequent events and
passed the order on 19.3. 1980 releasing the premises in favour of the
landlady. We do not see how to take cognizance of such subsequent events
releasing the premises can be described an order in nullity in the facts of
this case.
The
next contention was that the petitioner was an allottee of the premises by
virtue of his being in service but the petitioner was really a tenant of the
premises in question.
The
Government informed the petitioner to make alternative arrangements or seek
accommodation. The Government issued several notices on 24.11.1978, 22.5.1979,
12.7.1979, 27.9.1970 and 17.1.1980 to the petitioner and these facts have been
stated and have also been taken note of by the High Court in the judgment under
challenge. In spite of the said notices given to the petitioner who was an
allottee and who was informed about the requirement of the landlady, the
petitioner did not choose to move out from the premises. In the meantime, the
petitioner has retired from service in 1986 and a long time has passed now. In
this case we do not think it can be said that the order was bad because the
petitioner was initially not given an opportunity to show cause. Actually the
petitioner had enough opportunity. In the premises, the special leave petition
fails and we do 568 not find any ground to interfere with the order of the High
Court.
Having
regard to the facts that the petitioner had acquired government accommodation
and he has stayed in the premises in question for sometime, we allow him to
make alternative arrangement by 31.12.1987. The order for eviction will not be
executed until 31.12.1987 provided the petitioner files an undertaking in this
Court within four weeks from today to vacate and hand over the premises in
question.
H.L.C.
Petition dismissed.
Back