Writ Petition No. 15713 of 2020 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9859 WP No. 15713 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 15713 OF 2020 (GM-PP) BETWEEN: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, HMT LIMITED A GOVT. OF INDIA UNDERTAKING COMPANY, NO.59, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU-560 032, REP. BY MR. M.R.V. RAJA S/O LATE SRINIVAS, GENERAL TECHNICAL MANAGER, COMMON SERVICES DIVISION, PRESENTLY KNOWN AS AUXILIARY BUSINESS DIVISION, JALAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 013. 2. THE ESTATE OFFICER, ESTATE DEPARTMENT, HMT LIMITED, COMMON SERVICES DIVISION, JALAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 013, REP. BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, SRI. B.A. UMESH. (BY SRI. ANANTHARAMA C., ADVOCATE) … PETITIONERS Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND:
Legal Reasoning
MR. G. ANANDA S/O LATE G. GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO: A-28, SECTOR IV, HMT TOWNSHIP, JALAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 013. (BY SMT. T.G. SUDHA, ADVOCATE) … RESPONDENT - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9859 WP No. 15713 of 2020 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, SITTING AT DHARWAD BENCH, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Anantharama.C., counsel for the petitioners and Smt.T.G.Sudha., counsel for the respondent have appeared in person. 2. The short facts are these: The HMT Limited Company, a Public Sector Undertaking was incorporated in the year 1953 by the Government of India as a Machine Tool Manufacturing Company. The Estate Officer of HMT Limited is engaged in the Administration and Maintenance of the Company quarters which are 'Public Premises'. The respondent - G. Ananda while he was in service, Quarters No.A-28, Sector IV, HMT Township, Jalahalli was allotted to him. He retired from service on 31.01.2013 and was permitted to retain the quarters up to 30.04.2013 at his request letter dated 01.03.2013. Thereafter, he did not vacate the quarters and petitioner No.2 issued a show cause notice on - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9859 WP No. 15713 of 2020 03.07.2015 and initiated the action for eviction of the respondent from the quarters as per the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants), 1971, after giving sufficient opportunity by following principles of natural justice. The second petitioner passed the Eviction Order vide Ref.HMTL- CSD/Eviction/A-28/2018-19 dated:21.09.2018. The respondent challenged the said order before the XXII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-7) in M.A.No.16/2018. The Appellate Court vide order dated 10.07.2019 set aside the order dated 21.09.2018 and allowed the appeal. Under these circumstances, the petitioners have filed the captioned Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition. 3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Sri.Anantharama.C., in presenting his arguments strenuously urged that the Estate Officer of the Company had given sufficient opportunity to the respondent during the eviction proceeding; and the respondent had engaged an employee to assist in the eviction proceedings. It is also - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9859 WP No. 15713 of 2020 submitted the principles of Natural Justice are followed by the Estate Officer. He argued by saying that the respondent requested the second petitioner to grant time till 2016 May to vacate the quarters but has failed to do so. Counsel vehemently contended that the respondent must approach the proper forum to claim his arrears and retirement benefits and not hold back the quarters allotted to him. Among other grounds, he submitted that the order of the Appellate Court is untenable
Decision
and hence the writ petition may be allowed. Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the following orders and judgments. 1. HMT RETIRED EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATION V/S. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS IN WRIT PETITION NO.54203/2018 DISPOSED OF ON 09.11.2022. 2. HMT RETIRED EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATION V/S. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS IN WRIT APPEAL NO.25/2023 DISPOSED OF ON 14.11.2023. 3. M/S. HMT MACHINE TOOLS LIMITED AND OTHERS V/S. MR. JAYARAM.V. L AND OTHERS IN WRIT APPEAL NO.955/2023 DISPOSED OF ON 11.06.2024. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9859 WP No. 15713 of 2020 4. SRI.C. NAGARAJ V/S. HMT WATCH FACTORY I & II AND OTHERS IN WRIT APPEAL NO.15848/2011 DISPOSED OF ON 29.11.2012. Counsel Smt.T.G.Sudha., in presenting her arguments submits that a detailed statement of objections is filed and the same may be taken note of. Counsel submits that the inquiry conducted by HMT Limited is illegal and the same has been conducted without any authority of law. They have issued the notification against the superseded notification. The inquiry conducted by the Estate Officer is illegal. She also contends that the appointment of the Estate Officer is illegal and the officer concerned has misused the power. She argued by saying that the authority is harassing the occupants of the quarters and demanding exorbitant rents. Lastly, she submits that the respondent has no objection to vacating the quarters if HMT Limited clears all monetary dues to him. 4. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with utmost care. 5. The facts are sufficiently stated and they do not require reiteration. The issue falls around a narrow compass - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9859 WP No. 15713 of 2020 and relates to the stay on public premises/ Quarters by a retired employee post-retirement period. 6. Suffice it to note that the petitioner was an employee of the company and was allotted quarters in HMT Township. It is pivotal to note that he retired from service in 2013, however, he did not vacate the quarters. After the issuance of the show cause notice, the proceedings were initiated to evict him. The respondent objected to the power and authority of the Estate Officer. However, the issue about the appointment of the Estate officer is no longer res -integra. The respondent attempted to contend that he was not given an opportunity. In this Court also, he has adhered to the said contention. I decline to accept the said contention. The reason is simple and apparent. The true copy of the original order is furnished along with the writ petition and the same is marked as Annexure-C. A perusal of the same reflects that the Company adhered to principles of natural justice. Furthermore, despite granting several opportunities, the defendant did not submit any documents. Referring to the material on record, an eviction order was passed. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9859 WP No. 15713 of 2020 A good deal of argument is canvassed about the alleged illegality in the conduct of the inquiry proceedings and the decline of monetary benefits. The issue involved in the present writ petition is about the eviction order under the provisions of the Public Premises Act hence, the contentions about the inquiry proceedings, non-payment of monetary benefits etc., cannot be looked into. It is significant to note that the respondent retired from service back in 2013 however, he continued to stay in a quarters post-retirement period for almost twelve years which amounts to an unauthorised occupation and the same is contrary to the provisions contained under the Act. The respondent contends that he would vacate the Quarters if and only if HMT Limited clears all monetary dues to him. I may venture to say that the audacity of the respondent cannot be pardoned. He is occupying the quarters at the cost of the other government servants. In my view, such a person does not deserve any sympathy much less a misplaced sympathy. The Appellate court has overlooked this aspect of the matter and erroneously set aside the eviction order which is not correct. I may venture to say that the Appellate Court has failed to have regard to the relevant - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9859 WP No. 15713 of 2020 considerations and disregarded relevant matters. Therefore, this Court deems it proper to quash the order passed by the Appellate Court and confirm the order passed by the original authority. Counsel for the petitioners has cited several cases referred to supra, but I do not think that the law is in doubt. Each case turns on its facts. The present case is also tested in light of the aforesaid orders and judgments. 7. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order dated 10.07.2019 passed by the court of XXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Bengaluru (CCH No.7) in M.A.No.16/2018 vide Annexure-A is quashed. The order passed by the Estate Officer dated 21.09.2018 is confirmed. The respondent is directed to vacate the Quarters immediately. 8. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP, CLK LIST NO.: 19 SL NO.: 1