Bishnu Das vs Deputy Commissioner And Others

This is an appeal at the instance of the writ petitioner in WP No. 199 of 2018 against the order dated September 18, 2018 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing his writ petition.

By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge rejected the appellant's challenge to the notice dated August 01, 2018 issued by the respondent no. 3, the Pradhan of Shyam Nagar, Gram Panchayat.

The facts leading up to the filing of the writ petition by the appellant lay in a narrow compass. The appellant is a permanent resident of Radha Nagar village, within the jurisdiction of Shyam Nagar Gram Panchayat, Havelock, South Andaman. In the year 2003 the appellant started his business of food items near Radha Nagar Sea Beach, Havelock in a government revenue land on temporary basis. Subsequently, the revenue department allotted the plot of land on a portion whereof the petitioner was having his shop room to Shyam Nagar Gram Panchayat (hereinafter referred to as "the Gram Panchayat"). Thereafter, the Gram Panchayat, constructed number of small temporary shop rooms on the said part of the land and in the year 2018 the respondent no.3 handed over possession of one of the said shop rooms to the petitioner for a monthly rent of Rs. 400/- only. The appellant has all along being paying rent of his said shop room to the Gram Panchayat and the latter also issued the rent receipts in favour of the former. In this regard, the appellant has disclosed the rent receipt issued by the respondent no.3 in respect of his said shop. The appellant also obtained supply of electricity to his said shop room through the respondent no.3 and the appellant has been regularly paying the electricity consumption charges to the department of electricity. According to the appellant, suddenly he received a notice dated August 01, 2018 issued by the respondent no.3, which is hereinafter referred to as "the said notice dated August 01, 2018"), whereby the latter directed the former to vacate his said shop room and hand over physical possession thereof to the Gram Panchayat within 30 days. In the said notice dated August 01, 2018 the respondent no.3 alleged that in a meeting held on July 24, 2018 the Gram Panchayat decided to demolish the existing temporary shopping complex at Radha Nagar and construct a modern and permanent shopping complex thereat to create tourist attraction at Radha Nagar, generate more employment opportunity for the local youths as also to increase the revenue of the Gram Panchayat. It was further alleged that the petitioner has extended his said shop room by erecting temporary structure and by encroaching government land in an undisciplined manner without any consent and permission of Gram Panchayat or revenue authorities and it disgraces the beauty of the area.

The appellant claimed that although the said notice dated August 01, 2018 involves civil consequence to him but the respondent no.3 issued the same without issuing any show cause notice or granting any opportunity of hearing to him. Therefore, the said notice dated August 01, 2018 is void. The appellant urged that even if it were be held that the respondent no. 3 can require him to vacate the said shop for constructing a new market complex in that event also the said respondent would have to allot him a new shop room at the new market complex. The appellant, therefore, filed the aforementioned writ petition against the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman District, the Director of Tourism, Andaman & Nicobar Administration and the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, who were impleaded as the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3, respectively praying for issuance of writ of mandamus directing setting aside of the said notice dated August 01, 2018 issued by the respondent no.3. In prayer (ii) of the writ petition the appellant also prayed that the respondent no.3 be directed to accommodate him in a nearby place to continue his business for his survival and to give an undertaking that after construction of the modern shopping complex a shop room will be given to him on rent for his livelihood.

The writ petition was served upon all the respondents but it was the respondent no.3, the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat who alone filed an affidavit-in-opposition. In the said affidavit-in-opposition the respondent no.3 did not dispute either the appellant's induction in the said shop room by the Gram Panchayat or that the Gram Panchayat was receiving the monthly rent in respect of the said shop from the appellant or that the appellant has been lawfully occupying the said shop room as a tenant thereof. The respondent no. 3, however alleged that the temporary shop rooms were given to the interested persons, including the appellant by the previous Panchayat without any systematic procedure and the temporary shops standing on the landed property are also not in disciplined manner. It was further alleged that in a public meeting held on July 24, 2018 the members of the Radha Nagar village and other villagers of Shyam Nagar Gram Panchayat it was decided to demolish the existing market structure by evicting the tenants thereof, to construct a modern market complex and for issuance of notice to the existing tenants for vacating their respective shop rooms within 30 days. On the basis of the said decisions the respondent no. 3 alleged to have issued the said notice dated August 01, 2018 to the appellant. In his affidavit the respondent no.3 disclosed the resolutions passed in the Gram Sabha meeting and the Gram Panchayat meeting held on July 24, 2018. According to the respondent no. 3, ample time of 30 days had been given to the appellant to vacate his said shop room failing which legal procedure should be followed to evict the appellant. It was further alleged that before issuing the said notice dated August 01, 2018 the Gram Panchayat tried its level best to have amicable solution discussing the issue with the tenants of the existing temporary shopping complex on July 19, 2016 and in this regard, a notice dated July 18, 2016 was issued to all shopkeepers, including the writ petitioner to be present at the Gram Panchayat Bhawan on July 19, 2016 at 10 A.M. but the writ petitioner did not come forward for any meeting/discussion called for the purpose. According to the respondent no.3, when the writ petitioner failed to attend the opportunity of hearing given to him on July 19, 2016, he cannot allege that no opportunity of hearing was given to him. The respondent no.3 further claimed that he cannot give any assurance to the writ petitioner or the existing tenants of the temporary market for allotment of any shop room in the proposed new shopping complex as the allotments shall be done only as per guidelines issued by the Andaman and Nicobar Administration. The appellant can apply for a room in the new shopping complex as per guidelines issued by Andaman and Nicobar Administration only after construction of the said complex.

On September 18, 2018 the writ petition was heard by the learned Single Judge. In the meantime, in a writ petition, WP No. 188 of 2018 filed by another tenant, by order dated August 30, 2018 a learned Single Judge held that the writ petitioner significantly prayed for direction upon the respondent no.3 to accommodate him in an alternative place and to further give an undertaking that the petitioner would be provided a shop room for carrying on his business upon construction of a modern shopping complex. By the said order dated August 30, 2018 passed in the said WP No. 188 of 2018 the learned Single Judge, however, held that despite sympathetic consideration, the petitioner has been unable to show any right either in law or under any agreement that he has a right to be compensated in case of eviction or claim an alternative accommodation in the proposed shopping complex. It was further held that in the absence of any such right having been established, the prayer in the writ petition cannot be granted. With these findings, the learned Single Judge by the order dated August 30, 2018 dismissed the writ petition, WP No. 188 of 2018. Based on the decision in the said writ petition, WP No. 188 of 2018, by order dated September 18, 2018 another learned Single Judge dismissed the present petitioner's writ petition, WP No. 199 of 2018. As mentioned earlier, it is the said order dated September 18, 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned order") which has been challenged by the writ petitioner/appellant in this appeal.

In the present appeal the appellant filed an application being ASTA No. 22 of 2018 praying for stay of operation of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as restraining the Gram Panchayat from interfering with the running of his business from the said shop room till disposal of the appeal. In the said application the respondent no. 3 on November 15, 2018 has filed an affidavit-in-opposition. Even in the said affidavit-in-opposition the respondent no. 3 has reiterated the allegations made before the learned Single Judge and raised a point of maintainability of the present appeal as mentioned hereinafter.

Assailing the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there is no dispute that the appellant is in lawful occupation of the said shop room as a tenant thereof and the respondent no.3 has all along received the monthly rent from the appellant. It was argued that all the respondents in the writ petition are public authorities and as such, the writ petition was not dismissed as not maintainable. It was further argued that the respondents, including the respondent no.3 are public authorities their actions must meet the test of reasonableness under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and they cannot act arbitrarily. When the respondent no.3 issued the said notice dated August 1, 2018 directing the appellant to vacate the said shop room lawfully occupied by him the said notice involves civil consequence to the petitioner. Thus, before issuing the impugned notice dated August 01, 2018 it was the mandatory obligation of the respondent no.3 to issue a show cause notice to the appellant and grant him an opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant further referred to the allegations made in paragraph 10 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent 3 in the writ petition that by a notice dated July 18, 2016 all the tenants of the existing temporary market were requested to be present at the Gram Panchayat Bhawan on July 19, 2016 at 10 A.M. and since the appellant failed to attend the opportunity of hearing given to him on July 19, 2016, it is denied that no opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant or that the respondent no. 3 violated the principle of natural justice. Therefore, according to the appellant, the respondent no.3 admitted his obligation to grant an opportunity of hearing to the appellant before issuing the said notice dated August 01, 2018. It was, however, submitted that the respondent no.3 has not disclosed any document to substantiate the said alleged notice dated July 18, 2016 was received by the appellant. In any event, in the said notice the respondent no.3 complained of alleged illegal construction at Radha Nagar market area and the said purported notice did not mention about any alleged decision of the Gram Panchayat directing the appellant or any other tenant of the present market area to vacate their respective shop rooms. It was strenuously argued that when the said notice dated August 01, 2018 issued by the respondent No. 3 does not record issuance of show cause notice or any opportunity of hearing being granted to the appellant, the case sought to be made out by the respondent no.3 on the basis of the said purported notice dated July 18, 2016 is an afterthought. It was submitted that in the said notice dated August 01, 2018 the respondent no.3 alleged that the appellant has carried out certain illegal construction at the said shop room, but the respondent no.3 has neither mentioned the particulars of such alleged illegal construction nor did he issue any show cause notice to the appellant to meet such allegation. It was strenuously contended by the appellant that while passing the impugned order the learned Single Judge did not address the contention of the appellant to challenge the validity of the said notice dated August 01, 2018 issued by the respondent no. 3.

The appellant further submitted that in the present case in spite of having opportunities, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 being competent authorities did not file any affidavit in the writ petition to support the reasons mentioned in the notice dated August 01, 2018 issued by the respondent no.3 for directing the appellant to vacate his tenanted shop room, that is, for construction of a new modern shopping complex at Radha Nagar by demolishing the existing structure of the temporary market. It was argued for the appellant that the Andaman and Nicobar Island (Panchayats) Regulations, 1994 does not confer any right either upon the members of any village or the Gram Panchayat or the respondent no. 3 to evict the appellant from the said shop room lawfully occupied by the appellant. According to the appellant's counsel, the purported decision of the Gram Panchayat and the said notice dated July 01,2018 issued by the respondent no.3 are all without jurisdiction. In any event, it is interesting to note that the alleged Gram Sabha and Gram Panchayat meeting were held on the same day, that is, on July 24, 2018 and the respondent no.3 has not disclosed any notice of the said meeting. Further, the respondent no.3 in his affidavit-in-opposition has not disclosed any plan of the new modern permanent shopping complex being sanctioned by the competent authority at Radha Nagar Sea Beach. Therefore, according to the appellant, even it is accepted for the sake of argument that the respondent no.3 had the jurisdiction to require him to vacate the said room for construction of a new market complex, but the respondent no.3 arbitrarily and capriciously issued the notice dated August 01, 2018 and the same is liable to be set aside.

Citing the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Meghmala and others vs. G. Narasimha Reddy and others, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 383 learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is well settled law that even a trespasser cannot be evicted forcibly and state authority cannot dispossess a person by an executive order. The authority cannot become a law unto themselves. The Government can only resume possession only in a manner known to or recognised by law and not otherwise. According to the appellant, the impugned notice dated August 1, 2018 does not mention that if he does not vacate the said shop room within 30 days from the date of the said notice the respondent no.3 would approach which court of law or other competent quasi judicial authority for obtaining a decree/order for his eviction from the said shop room. Therefore, in the present case it is evident that on the strength of the impugned notice dated August 01, 2018 the respondent-state authorities are assuming unto themselves to dispossess the appellant from the said property by coercive measures resulting in violation of the rule of law. Urging all these, it was strenuously contended by the appellant that the learned Single Judge fell into an error of law in dismissing the writ petition without deciding the validity of the said notice dated August 01,2018 and directing the respondent no.3 to give effect to the said notice dated August 01, 2018 after a period of 30 days from the date of communication of the said order.

It was also contended by the appellant that even if for the sake of argument it were accepted that respondent no.3 has any authority requiring the appellant to vacate the said shop room for the purpose of constructing a new market building, in that event also the appellant's tenancy in respect of the said shop room could not be terminated and the respondents have to provide the appellant with an alternative accommodation during the construction of the new market complex and to allot a new shop room in the proposed new market complex after completion of construction. The right of the appellant to continue with his present business at an alternative accommodation to be provided by the respondents till completion of the new market building and thereafter to obtain allotment of the shop room in the new market building is founded on Articles 14, 19 (1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, according to the appellant, once again the learned Single Judge fell into an error of law to reject the appellant's alternative prayer for a direction upon the respondents to provide him with an alternative accommodation to run his shop until completion of the proposed new market building and to allot him a new shop room in the new market building. With the above arguments the appellant prayed for setting aside of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and for quashing of the impugned notice dated August 01, 2018 issued by the respondent no. 3.

When the appeal was taken up for hearing the respondent no.3, the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat was represented by Mr. V.D. Sivabalan, but the respondent nos. 1 and 2 remained unrepresented. It was argued for the respondent no. 3 that as recorded in the impugned notice dated August 01, 2018, the higher authorities and dignitaries visiting the Radha Nagar directed the Panchayat to construct a modern shopping complex for beautification of the area and in a meeting of the Gram Panchayat held on July 24, 2018 it was decided to demolish the existing temporary structure after evicting the existing tenants and to construct a modern permanent shopping complex at Radha Nagar. Therefore, it was within the power of the respondent no.3 to issue the notice dated August 01, 2018 directing the appellant to vacate his shop room of the present temporary market complex and handover physical possession thereof to the Gram Panchayat. The respondent no.3 submitted that a notice dated July 18, 2016 was issued to all the shop keepers including the petitioner/appellant directing them to be present at the Gram Panchayat Bhavan on July 19, 2016 at 10 A.M. regarding illegal construction at Radha Nagar market area, but the appellant did not attend the said meeting. Therefore, the appellant cannot complain of any violation of principle of natural justice and on such score the appellant cannot challenge the notice dated August 01, 2018.

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 submitted that Section 17 read with Sections 28, 40,163 and 167 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Panchayats) Regulations, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1994 Regulations") confer power upon the Gram Panchayat and the respondent no.3, the Panchayat Pradhan to direct the appellant to vacate the said shop room of the existing market complex.

Learned counsel for the respondent no.3, however, even could not answer to our query which is the competent court or quasi judicial authority the respondents intend to approach for obtaining any decree/order of eviction against the appellant on the basis of impugned notice dated August 01, 2018. The respondent no.3 submitted that the said notice dated August 18, 2018 issued by the respondent no.3 was only a notice and not an order of eviction. It was lastly argued for the respondent no. 3 that the respondent no.3 had issued similar notices to the tenants of other shop rooms of the present market complex and one of them, namely Nabin Chandra Kanjilal filed a writ petition being WP No. 198 of 2018 before this Court challenging the similar notice dated August 01, 2018 issued to him by the respondent no.3 which was rejected by the same Single Judge on September 05, 2018 on the same grounds same as those contained in the present impugned order. An appeal, being MA No. 043 of 2018 preferred by the said Nabin Chandra Kanjilal against said order dated September 05, 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge was rejected by the Division Bench of this Court on September 28, 2018. Even an application, RVW No. 006 of 2018 filed by the said Nabin Chandra Kanjilal seeking for review of the said order of the Division Bench date 28, 2018 passed in MA No. 043 of 2018 has also been rejected on July 05, 2019. It was strenuously argued for the respondent no.3 that in view of the said decision of the Division Bench dated September 28, 2018 passed in MA No. 043 of 2018 the issue with regard to validity of the impugned notice dated August 01, 2018 has attained finality and as such, this Court would not entertain the present appeal.

In his reply, learned counsel for the appellant submitted neither by the order impugned in this appeal nor by the order dated September 05, 2018 passed in WP No. 198 of 2018 (the writ petition filed by Shri Nabin Chandra Kanjilal) the learned Single Judge did not decide the validity of the notice dated August 01, 2018 issued by the respondent no. 3. Even the Division Bench order dated September 28, 2018 passed in MA No 043 of 2018 did not decide the validity of the notice issued by the respondent no.3 directing the appellant in the said appeal to vacate his shop room. In fact the learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition, WP No. 198 of 2018 on the same ground for which the present appellants' writ petition was rejected and only such ground of dismissal was upheld by the Division Bench in said appeal, MA No. 043 of 2018. It was therefore, contended that the present appellant is entitled to press his grounds to challenge impugned notice dated August 01, 2018 issued by the respondent no.3 in this appeal and this Court would decide the validity of the impugned notice dated August 01, 2018.

We have given our anxious thought to the facts of this case. We would like to first deal with the contention raised by the respondent no.3 that in view of the decision of the Division Bench dated September 28, 2018 passed in the appeal, MA No. 043 of 2018 filed by the said Nabin Chandra Kanjilal, the appellant cannot further proceed with the present appeal. In the present case the appellant challenged the notice dated August 01, 2018 issued by the respondent no. 3 directing him to vacate the said shop room on the ground of being violative of the principle of natural justice and void. This aspect of the matter with regard to the challenge of the appellant against the validity of the said notice dated August 01, 2018 issued by the respondent no.3 has not at all been decided by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. Copies of the orders dated September 05, 2018 in WP No. 198 of 2018 (Nabin Chandra Kanjilal vs. The Deputy Commissioner and others) as well as copies of the Division Bench order dated September 28, 2018 passed in the appeal filed by the said Nabin Chandra Kanjilal being MA No. 043 of 2018 wer produced before us. Once again, after going through the said orders we find that the said Nabin Chandra Kanjilal in his writ petition also challenged the validity of the notice also dated August 01, 2018 issued by the respondent no.3 for violation of the principle of natural justice. However, neither the learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench decided the issue with regard to the validity of the similar notice issued by the respondent no.3 directing the said Nabin Chandra Kanjilal to vacate his shop room. Thus, we are unable to accept the argument advanced by the respondent no.3 that in view of the Division Bench order dated September 28, 2018 passed in MA No. 043 of 2018 the validity of the impugned notice dated August 01, 2018 issued by the respondent no.3 directing the appellant herein to vacate his shop room cannot be decided by us in this appeal.

In this case, admittedly the appellant was inducted as a tenant of the said shop room and he had been paying monthly rent for the said shop to the Gram Panchayat. The appellant has also been regularly paying the charges for consumption of electricity at the said shop room to the electricity authority. Even the respondent no.3 could not deny the appellant to be in lawful occupation of the said shop room. The Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman and Deputy Director Tourism of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, being the respondent nos. 1 and 2, respectively have not filed any affidavit to give credence to the grounds put forth by the respondent no.3 in the said notice dated August 01, 2018. The respondent no.3 alone filed the affidavit-in-opposition in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge. In the paragraph 10 of the said affidavit-in-opposition the respondent no. 3 alleged that an opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant on July 19, 2016 when he, along with other tenants of the present market complex were directed to attend the meeting held by the Gram Panchayat on that date and since the appellant did not attend the said meeting he cannot complain of any violation of the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the respondent no.3 accepted that before issuance of the said notice dated August 01, 2018 the appellant was required to be granted an opportunity of hearing. According to the respondent no.3 such requirement of an opportunity of hearing was complied with when the appellant was requested to attend the meeting of the Gram Panchayat which was scheduled to be held on July 19, 2016. However, from a bare reading of the alleged notice dated July 18, 2016, as disclosed by the respondent no.3 in the affidavit-in-opposition, it is evident that the said notice did not mention any proposed decision of any authority to direct the appellant or the other tenants of the present temporary market to vacate their respective shop room. In any event, from a copy of the rent receipt dated June 1, 2018 issued by the respondent no.3 himself it is evident that the Gram Panchayat has received the rent from the appellant for the months of January to April, 2017. Further, the respondent no.3 has not disclosed the relevant records of the said alleged meeting held by the Gram Panchayat on July 19, 2016 or that the appellant was informed of any alleged decision of the Gram Panchayat taken in the said alleged meeting held on July 19, 2016. Even in the said notice dated August 01, 2018 issued by the respondent no.3 there is no mention of any opportunity of hearing been given to the appellant before directing him to vacate the said shop room. In these facts, we do not find any merit in the contention of the respondent no.3 that since the appellant did not appear before the Gram Panchayat on July 19, 2016 the appellant cannot complain that the impugned notice dated August 01, 2018 is vitiated by principle of natural justice.

It is settled law that any administrative or executive authority before taking any decision involving civil consequence to any person must give an opportunity of hearing to such person, otherwise such action is liable to be set aside for violation of the principle of natural justice and being void. In the facts of the instant case as discussed above, it is beyond any doubt that issuance of the said notice dated August 01, 2018 by the respondent no. 3 directing the appellant to vacate his said shop room involves civil consequence for the appellant. Thus, issuance of the said notice dated August 01, 2018 without issuance of any show cause notice to the appellant and without granting any opportunity of hearing to the appellant is void and the said notice cannot be sustained. On this ground alone the said notice dated August 01,2018 is liable to be quashed but the learned Single Judge fell into an error of law in not setting aside the said notice.

According to the respondent no. 3, Section17 read with Sections 28 (2), 40, 163 and 169 (2) of the 1994 Regulation confer power upon the Gram Panchayat as well as the respondent no.3, the Pradhan to direct the appellant to vacate his said shop room lawfully occupied by him. It is a fact that as per Section 17 of the 1994 Regulation all powers to carry out the resolutions of the Gram Panchayat shall vest in the Pradhan. Section 28 (2) confers power upon the Gram Panchayat to make provision for carrying out, within the area of the Gram, any work or measure which is likely to promote the health, safety, education, comfort, convenience or social or economic well-being of the residence of the Gram. Section 40 confers power on the Gram Panchayat to lease by public auction or private contract the collection of any fee on markets and bazaars if any such fee is imposed under Section 37. Further, Sections 163 and 169 (2) of the 1994 Regulation deals with the power of a Zilla Parishad to carry out various activities including the power to manage and control any Zilla Parishad market. Therefore, none of the Sections 17, 40, 163 and 169 (2) of the 1994 Regulation relied upon by the respondent no.3 have any relevance in the instant case. In fact, Section 28 read with clause 1(v) of the Second Schedule and Section 36 (2) of the 1994 Regulation confer power on the Gram Panchayat to manage and regulate the markets under its control. However, the said provision of the 1994 Regulation cannot be construed to confer any power on the Gram Panchayat or the Pradhan to evict a lawful tenant of any shop room of any market or to direct such lawful tenant to vacate his shop room. Accordingly, we also find merit in the contention of the appellant that the alleged decision of the Gram Panchayat dated July 19, 2018 as well as the said notice dated August 01, 2018 issued by the respondent no. 3 directing the appellant to vacate his sad shop room are also without jurisdiction.

Further, it is well settled law that even while dealing with a tenant the public authorities cannot act arbitrarily or capriciously. In this case admittedly the appellant is a tenant in respect of his said shop but the respondent no.3 has directed him to vacate and hand over possession of the said shop of the Gram Panchayat. The ground urged by the respondent no.3 for issuance of such direction upon the appellant is that the higher authorities and dignitaries visiting the Radha Nagar Beach area have directed the Panchayat to construct a modern permanent shopping complex at Radha Nagar Beach area. As mentioned earlier, the respondent nos. 1 and 2, the competent authorities have not filed any affidavit to corroborate the said assertion of the respondent no.3. Even the respondent no.3 has not disclosed any document to substantiate any decision of the Andaman and Nicobar Administration to construct a modern shopping complex at Radha Nagar beach by demolishing the existing temporary structure of the market complex in which the said shop room of the appellant is located. The respondent no.3 has not disclosed any sanction granted by the competent authority for construction of any new permanent shopping complex at Radha Nagar Beach. In these facts even if it is accepted for the sake of argument that the respondent no.3 had the power to issue the notice dated August 01,2018 we also find substance in the contention of the appellant that the said notice was issued by the respondent no.3 by arbitrarily exercising his power. Neither in the impugned notice dated August 01, 2018 nor in the affidavit filed before the learned Single Judge the respondent no.3 has mentioned the competent court or the quasi judicial authority before whom the Gram Panchayat would file the legal proceeding for obtaining a decree/ order of eviction against the appellant. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed before this Court in application being ASTA No. 23 of 2018 the respondent no. 3 for the first time alleged that the impugned notice dated August 01, 2018 is only a notice and not an order of eviction. However, the said notice dated August 01, 2018 does not mention determination of the tenancy of the appellant. Further, the respondent no.3 in his said affidavit has not mentioned the competent court or the quasi judicial authority before which the legal proceeding would be initiated for seeking a decree/order of eviction of the appellant from the said tenanted shop room. As mentioned earlier, in response to our query even learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3 could not mention the civil court or quasi judicial authority who is to be approached by the respondent no. 3 for obtaining a decree for eviction against the appellant on the basis of the impugned notice dated August 01, 2018. In these facts, we find substance in the contention of the appellant that in the event of his failure to comply with the direction contained in the impugned notice dated August 01, 2018 the respondent no.3 shall take coercive steps against him for vacating the said shop room. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Meghmala (supra) the respondent no. 3 cannot dispossess the appellant, still a lawful tenant of the said shop room on the strength of the impugned notice dated August 01, 2018 resulting in violation of the rule of law.

For all the foregoing reasons, the appeal of the appellant succeeds. The impugned order dated September 18, 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge, on the basis of the order dated August 30, 2018 passed in WP No. 188 of 2018 is set aside. The notice dated August 01, 2018 issued by the respondent no.3 against the petitioner stands quashed.

In view of our above decision to quash the said notice dated August 01, 2018 we find that the prayer of the appellant for alternative accommodation has become redundant and as such, we refrain from dealing with the said prayer.

Since we have allowed the appeal filed by the appellant against the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge the application, ASTA No. 22 of 2018 stands disposed of without any further order.

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

Urgent certified copies of this judgement, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance usual formalities.