Amarendra Choudhury vs State of Assam and Others

V.K. Khanna, C.J.—This appeal has been filed against the decision of the learned single Judge dated 3.5.95 in Civil Rule No. 4156/91 which was Tiled by thirty four (34) Petitioners. The present appeal had been preferred only by one Petitioner-Appellant Shri Amarendra Choudhury (Petitioner No. 1 in the Civil Rule).

We have heard Mr. A. Sarma, learned Counsel for the Appellant, assisted by Ms. B Dutta, learned Counsel and Mr. A.S. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, assisted by Mr. A.C. Sarma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam.

Facts of the case for the purpose of adjudication of the present appeal arc that the Petitioners challenged the action of the Respondents in terminating the authorisation to occupy the Government quarters which had been in their possession and also the order of eviction passed by the competent authority in pursuance of notice issued u/s 4 of the Assam Public Premises (Eviction of Un-audiorised Occupants) Act, 1971. By Office Memorandum dated 9th/13th March, 1989, the Government of Assam besides laying various conditions regarding the occupation of Government accommodation provided that the employees who have their own house in greater Guwahati will not be allotted quarters in the Dispur Capital Complex and HUDCO Complex. It is in pursuance of this Office Memorandum that the orders of cancellation of authorisation to occupy the Government quarters were issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam. One such order dated 14.6.91 has been annexed to the present appeal as Annexure - III. The order specifically states that the present Appellant is in occupation of a Government quarter in Dispur Capital Complex/ HUDCO Complex, though he has a house in and around Guwahati and despite the Office Memorandum referred to above has not vacated the aforesaid Government quarter and his occupation of the Govern-ment quarters was declared to be unauthorised. Thereafter eviction proceedings were initialed under the Assam Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Oc-cupants) Act, 1971 for evicting the Appellant from the Government quarters.

In the Civil Rule, the appellant-Petitioner and other Petitioners challenged the order of cancellation dated 14.6.91 and the eviction proceedings which have been initialed under the aforesaid Act of 1971. The learned single Judge in his judgment has held that the appellant-Petitioner and other Petitioners are covered within the definition of "Unauthorised Occupants" in the Act of 1971.

We have heard Mr. A. Sarma, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-Petitioner who submitted mat the Office Memorandum dated 9th/13th March 1985 and in particular paragraph 9/12 thereof does not apply to the appellant-Petitioner as he was allotted quarters prior to the Office Memorandum and the impugned order dated 14.6.91 having been based on the said paragraph 9/12 of the Office Memorandum is liable to be quashed. We are however of the opinion that the position of the Appellant-Petitioner in respect of Government quarters which is under his occupation is that of a licencee and the aforesaid licence can be terminated by the Government. In respect of category of employees who have their Own houses in Guwahati, the State of Assam framed a policy that they will not be entitled to allotment of the Government quarters and considering the object of the policy we are of the view that the Office Memorandum would equally apply to those who have been allotted Government quarters prior to the Office Memorandum but have retained the same contrary to the said Office Memorandum.

The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that the above policy has been framed by the State Government because of paucity of Government quarters at the Capital Complex or HUDCO Complex. In case, it is a fact that there is shortage of Government accommodation, it cannot be said that the formulation of policy was arbitrary, discriminatory or capricious requiring interference by this Court. On the other hand, it has not been disputed before us that there is shortage of Government accommodation. There are large number of Government employees who have to take private houses on rent as they cannot be allotted Government quarters. If that is so, in our opinion, the policy of the State of Assam that employees who have got their own houses in Guwahati would not be allotted Government quarters cannot be said to be unreasonable or discriminatory and would equally apply to employees who have been allotted Government quarters prior to the Office Memorandum and have houses in and around Guwahati. We are, therefore, in agreement with the view taken by the learned single Judge that in view of the cancellation order passed by the competent authority, the appellant-Petitioner and other Petitioners became unauthorised occupants within the definition given under the Act of 1971.

Mr. A. Sarma, learned Counsel for the Appellant, has further stated that the aforesaid policy has been applied to only a very few Government, employees of the State of Assam. We have seen the averments made in the Civil Rule, and we find that, no foundation has been laid on this score. In the present appeal we specifically heard Mr. AS. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, on this question and we see no reason as to why the policy framed by the Government should not be applied uniformly to all the employees who are covered by this policy which has been framed with the laudable object of providing accommodation to those Government employees who are in the queue waiting for their turn to got allotment of a government quarters.

Mr. A. Sarma, learned Counsel for the Appellant, has prayed that sometime may be granted so as to enable the Appellant to shift from the Government quarters. We have also heard Mr. A.S. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, on this point. Looking into entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that time till 31.12.95 be granted to the Appellant to vacate the quarter in question.

Subject 10 the aforesaid observations, we are of the opinion that judgment of the learned single Judge dated 3.5.95 does not require interference by this Court, The appeal is accordingly rejected. However, looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.