# Satish Chandra Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2015) 3 ILRA 1376
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-08-14
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 44397 of 2015
- **Bench:** Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satish-chandra-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43324
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Occupants) Act-1972-Section 11-read with
Indian Penal code-Section 441-unauthorized
occupant in public premises-authorities to
follow the procedure given in S.D. Bandi casein view of guide lines of Apex Court-no relief
can be granted-petition dismissed.
Held: Para-12
Therefore, the authority concerned shall
adopt an uniform policy for granting
extension
to
retain
the
government
accommodation beyond prescribed limit. The
State functionaries would follow the law laid
down by the Supreme Court in the case of
S.D. Bandi (supra) in letter and spirit.

## Text

1376
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.08.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.
Writ-A No. 44397 of 2015
Satish Chandra Yadav
 ..Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Dharmendra Singh
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri B.N. Singh Rathore
U.P. Public premises (Eviction of unauthorized
Occupants) Act-1972-Section 11-read with
Indian Penal code-Section 441-unauthorized
occupant in public premises-authorities to
follow the procedure given in S.D. Bandi casein view of guide lines of Apex Court-no relief
can be granted-petition dismissed.
Held: Para-12
Therefore, the authority concerned shall
adopt an uniform policy for granting
extension
to
retain
the
government
accommodation beyond prescribed limit. The
State functionaries would follow the law laid
down by the Supreme Court in the case of
S.D. Bandi (supra) in letter and spirit.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar
Singh Baghel, J.)
1. The petitioner is a Sub Inspector
in Civil Police. He was allotted a
government
accommodation
being
Quarter
No.B-11,
Police
Colony,
Atarsuiya Compound, District Allahabad
when he was posted at Allahabad.
2. From the record, it transpires that
the petitioner was transferred from
Allahabad to Sitapur on 5.11.2013 and the
accommodation of the petitioner was allotted
to the respondent no.8 on 13.2.2014. The
respondent
no.8
had
filed
several
representations before the Police Officers for
taking possession of the said accommodation
but no action was taken, whereupon, he
preferred Writ Petition No.9900 of 2015 for
a direction upon the respondents to take
appropriate action. The said writ petition was
disposed of on 16.2.2015 by issuing a
direction upon the fourth respondent to
consider the cause of the petitioner therein.
3. It appears that in compliance of
the order of this Court dated 19.2.2015,
the fourth respondent has passed the
impugned order against the petitioner to
vacate the premises in question within
five days.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the
petitioner has preferred this writ petition.
5. The experience reveals that several
writ petitions have been filed in this Court
for the similar relief. In the case in hand, for
the same accommodation, two writ petitions
have been filed, one by the allottee and
another by the person, who is occupying the
accommodation.
6. The Supreme Court in the case of
S.D. Bandi v. Divisional Traffic Officer,
Karnataka
State
Road
Transport
Corporation and others, (2013) 12 SCC
631, has laid down the law that an
employee should not overstay after his
retirement or transfer. The Court has
noticed that the States of Uttar Pradesh
and Orissa have amended Section 441 of
the Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC").
The Supreme Court has observed that the
Government in two States are in a
position to file criminal proceedings in the
3 All] Satish Chandrta Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1377
case of unauthorised occupation of
government accommodation. Section 441
as amended in Uttar Pradesh as quoted in
S.D. Bandi (supra) reads as under:
'441. ... or, having entered into or upon
such property, whether before or after the
coming into force of the Criminal Laws
(U.P. Amendment) Act, 1961, with the
intention of taking unauthorised possession
or making unauthorised use of such property
fails to withdraw from such property or its
possession or use, when called upon to do so
by that another person by notice in writing,
duly served upon him, by the date specified
in the notice,
is
said
to
commit
"criminal
trespass".' (Uttar Pradesh)
7. After considering the response
from all the States, the Supreme Court has
made certain suggestions inter alia that: a
notice
should
be
sent
to
the
allottee/officer/employee; the principles
of natural justice have to be followed
while serving the notice; show cause
notice should be sent within 7 working
days; order of eviction should be passed
as expeditiously as possible preferably
within a period of 15 days; if the
occupant's case is genuine then, in the
first instance, an extension of not more
than 30 days should be granted.
8. The Supreme Court further held
that the same procedure must be followed
for damages also; the arrears/damages
should be collected as arrears of land
revenue; to make it more stringent, there
must be some provision for stoppage or
reduction in the monthly pension till the
date of vacation of the premises.
9. The State of Uttar Pradesh has
informed the Supreme Court that in the
State of Uttar Pradesh, there is already a
provision in respect of arrears of rent and
damages and the rules enable the State to
recover the same as arrears of land
revenue. The Supreme Court was also
informed by the State of Uttar Pradesh
that the stringent provision viz. Section 11
of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 is in
force.
10. In spite of the said judgement, it
appears that the employees who are
transferred in the State of Uttar Pradesh
retain their accommodation on lame
excuses and the authorities concerned
without application of their mind grant
extension
of
time
to
retain
the
accommodation.
11. In a large number of cases, the
petitioners
cite
the
example
of
discrimination with them that other
similarly placed employees have been
allowed to retain the accommodation by
the official concerned while in his case,
his application has been rejected.
12.

Therefore,
the
authority
concerned shall adopt an uniform policy
for granting extension to retain the
government
accommodation
beyond
prescribed limit. The State functionaries
would follow the law laid down by the
Supreme Court in the case of S.D. Bandi
(supra) in letter and spirit.
13. For the reasons mentioned
herein above, I do not find any ground for
interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution. The writ petition fails and it
is accordingly dismissed.
14. No order as to costs.
--------
1378
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.09.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.
THE HON'BLE SHASHI KANT, J.
Writ-A No. 49158 of 2015
Vivek Dubey
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Radha Kant Ojha, Sri Sanjay Mishra,
Sri Durgesh Kumar Dubey
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri G.K. Singh, Sri Ajay Kumar
(A)
Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226Combined
State
examination-petitioner
kept the column 20 blank-relating to post of
designated officer-after qualifying written
examination-participated
in
interviewwhen result declared-came to know-lesser
marks candidate selected as designated
officer but petitioner ignored-because not
marked
column
20-even
interview
committee
not
aware
about
this
bifurcation-whether
can
be
ignored?-
question referred to full bench.
(B) Constitution of India-Art.-226-Writ
petition-laches
&
delay-when
fetalquestion referred to full bench.
Held: Para-26
We find it difficult to agree with the
judgment in in the case of Vinay Kumar Pal
(supra) which has been rendered on
practically identical facts. We deem it fit to
refer the following questions of law to be
answered by a Larger Bench of this Court :
(a) Once the Writ Court, in respect of
same examination and in respect of
same column no. 20 of the form having
been left blank, had declared that such
candidates are also to be considered for
the post of 'Designated Officer', is it
open to the Commission to have two sets
of norms, one for the candidates who
approached the High Court and the other
for
the
candidates
who
did
not
approached the High Court? Why such
judgements be not read as judgements
in rem?
(b) Can a writ petition be dismissed on
the ground of latches only because the
result of Preliminary Examination had
been known to the petitioner, when,
there had been a judgment of this Court
for ignoring the blank Coloumn No. 20, in
the
matter
of
consideration
of
candidature of the candidate against the
post of "Designated Officer"?
(c) Whether the Division Bench in the case
of Vinay Kumar Pal (supra) was right in the
facts of the case, in recording that there has
been inordinate delay in filing the writ
petition with reference to the date on which
the final result was declared?
Case Law discussed:
W.P. No. 31864 of 2014 decided on 13th June
2014; Writ A No. 617 of 2015 decided on
15.01.2015; [2011 AIR SCW 3033].
(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.)
1.
Heard Sri Radha Kant Ojha,
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Durgesh
Kumar Dubey, Advocate for petitioner
and Sri G.K. Singh, Senior Advocate
assisted by Sri Ajay Kumar, Advocate for
respondent nos. 1 and 2.
2.
Uttar Pradesh Public Service
Commission,
Allahabad
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
'the
Commission'),
published
an
advertisement
dated
23.03.2013, inviting
applications for
various posts for appointment on the posts
of Combined State/Upper Subordinate
Services
(General
Recruitment)
Examination,
2013.