N. Sasikumar vs The Inspector General of Police

M.M. Sundresh, J.—The petitioner has been in occupation of family quarters at Avadi with effect from 13.6.2007. The allotment was for a period of three years. As the petitioner was staying for more than the permissible number of years, the impugned notice was issued seeking to vacate the quarters, failing which appropriate action would be taken under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the allotment was made in the year 2007, the petitioner was posted to Jammu and Kashmir. As per the regulations, the petitioner is entitled to continue in the allotted quarters during the tenure at Jammu and Kashmir. In the year 2012, the petitioner has come back from Jammu and Kashmir. Even after coming back, the petitioner is entitled for allotment. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In support of the contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon the CRPF Family Accommodation Rules, 2008, particularly, Rules 25 to 28. The learned counsel has also placed reliance upon the subsequent proceedings dated 12.6.2008 and 28.7.2009 in this regard.

Per contra, the learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that even as per the request made by the petitioner on 4.7.2013, he has sought for only one year and the said period is also over. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order. The learned counsel further submitted that the rules relied upon by the petitioner will not help his case, as it merely enables a person who is working in Jammu and Kashmir to hold the quarters for his family as long he continues his work at the said place. In other words, normally the period fixed for getting a quarter will not be applicable to cases in which an officer is working in a place like Jammu and Kashmir. It does not mean that the said period will have to be excluded and thereafter the normal period would have to be counted. The learned counsel also submitted that more than 200 applications are pending from the officers who are working in Jammu and Kashmir. A further submission has been made that the petitioner is entitled for allotment only at Bangalore, as he was allotted to the said battalion and not at Avadi in any case.

As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner does not have a legal right to continue in the quarter which has been allotted for more than the period for which permission has been granted. Admittedly, the period for which permission was granted came to be over long time back. The object behind allowing the family of an officer who is working in a place like Jammu and Kashmir is to settle them nicely when a difficult job is being done. That is the reason for the time limit fixed for vacating the quarter has been dispensed with as long as the officer is working at Jammu and Kashmir. On perusal of Rule 25 of the CRPF Family Accommodation Rules, it is clear that the occupation period will be counted from the date of original allotment of such accommodation on return from North East region or Jammu and Kashmir, as the case may be. In the subsequent proceedings, only a relaxation has been given for the period of stay for the family of the officer who continues to work in Jammu and Kashmir. In the case on hand, the petitioner has also come back from Jammu and Kashmir. Further more the petitioner, having asked for continuance for one more year in the year 2013, cannot take a contra view. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are school going children of the petitioner who would be very much affected, if they are asked to vacate. The learned counsel also submitted that as the petitioner is genuinely pursuing his case, the respondents will not insist upon penal rent. Considering the position of the family, a submission has been made to permit the petitioner to continue in the quarters till the end of March, 2015.

Considering the above submission, this Court, taking note of the services rendered by the petitioner in a difficult place like Jammu and Kashmir and the facts and circumstances surrounding the case, is of the considered view that it is a fit case where the respondents can desist themselves from insisting upon penal rent. As the petitioner''s family is residing in the quarters with school going minor children and it will be very difficult to find an alternative accommodation at this stage, this Court is inclined to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue in the quarters till the end of March, 2015. With the above said direction, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, the interim order stands vacated and the M.P.No. 2 of 2013 is also dismissed. No cost