Sri Krishna Pandeya vs State of Bihar and Others

Narayan Roy, J.—Heard counsel for the parties.

This writ application has been filed for quashing the order, as contained in Annexure 3, whereby and whereunder direction has been issued to realise penal rent from the Petitioner for occupying a Government quarter at Sasaram.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the order for realization of penal rent appears to be highly arbitrary, unreasonable and without jurisdiction, inasmuch as sufficient opportunity was not given to the Petitioner to explain his conduct.

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents stating therein that the Petitioner since was in occupation of Quarter No. F-02 at Sasaram unauthorized since 27.08.1993, he is liable to pay penal rent till the date he vacated the quarter aforesaid on 15.10.1997.

It appears that the Petitioner was transferred in the year 1993 from Dehri to Sitamarhi and even after his transfer he occupied the quarter unauthorized at Sasaram. It further appears that he vacated the quarter on 15.10.1997 and the authorities after due notice to him passed the order impugned, as contained in Annexure 3, to realise the penal rent from the Petitioner with effect from 27.08.1993 to 15.10.1997. From Annexures 4 and 5 to the Writ application, it appears that the Petitioners filed representation before the Respondent concerned on 26.5.1997 to reconsider his case.

At the face of Annexures 4 and 5, now it cannot be said that no notice, whatsoever, was ever given to the Petitioner for realization of the penal rent for his unauthorized occupation of a Government quarter, rather it appears that the Petitioner was aware of this fact and in most unauthorized manner he occupied the Government quarter, The authorities, therefore, were justified in realizing the penal rent from the Petitioner for his unauthorized occupation of Government quarter at Sasaram.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the order, as contained in Annexure 3, has already been given effect to and by now the Petitioner has superannuated.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons aforementioned, I do not find sufficient reasons to interfere with the order impugned, as contained in Annexure 3.

In the result, this application is dismissed.

No order as to costs.