# M. SATYANANDAM v. DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR

- **Citation:** [1987] 3 S.C.R. 566
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1987-07-17
- **Bench:** Sabyasachi Mukharji, G.L. Oza
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/m-satyanandam-v-deputy-secretary-to-the-government-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-9602
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Administrative Law-Release of possession of premises held by
Government-Government has power to review its earlier order by
taking subsequent events into consideration.
The petitioner was an allottee of the premises held by the Government at the relevant time. The landlady applied for release of the
premises but the request was rejected. However, upon a further re·
presantation made by the landlady stating that her son was not allowing
her to live .JVith him in another house belonging to her, the Government
made an order releasing the premises in her favour and asked the
petitioner to vacate the vremises. Several notices were also issued to
him in that behalf. The petitioner challenged the order of release contending that he had not been given an opportunity to show cause, and,
that the Government had no power to review its earlier order rejecting
the request; but the petition was dismissed by the High Court.
Dismissing the petition for Special Leave to appeal.
HELD: It is well settled law of this Court that in case of bona fide
need, subsequent events must be taken into account if they are relevant
F
to the question of release of possession of the premises. The contention
that the Government cannot review its own order cannot be accepted.
When, in spite of the notices given to him, the petitioner did not choose
to move out of the premises it cannot be said that he was not given an
opportunity to show cause. [567B-C]
G

## Text

---
A
B
c
D
E
M. SATYANANDAM
v.
DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.
JULY 17, 1987
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND G.L. OZA, JJ.]
Administrative Law-Release of possession of premises held by
Government-Government has power to review its earlier order by
taking subsequent events into consideration.
The petitioner was an allottee of the premises held by the Government at the relevant time. The landlady applied for release of the
premises but the request was rejected. However, upon a further re·
presantation made by the landlady stating that her son was not allowing
her to live .JVith him in another house belonging to her, the Government
made an order releasing the premises in her favour and asked the
petitioner to vacate the vremises. Several notices were also issued to
him in that behalf. The petitioner challenged the order of release contending that he had not been given an opportunity to show cause, and,
that the Government had no power to review its earlier order rejecting
the request; but the petition was dismissed by the High Court.
Dismissing the petition for Special Leave to appeal.
HELD: It is well settled law of this Court that in case of bona fide
need, subsequent events must be taken into account if they are relevant
F
to the question of release of possession of the premises. The contention
that the Government cannot review its own order cannot be accepted.
When, in spite of the notices given to him, the petitioner did not choose
to move out of the premises it cannot be said that he was not given an
opportunity to show cause. [567B-C]
G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No. 7213 of 1987.
k
_..
. _.;,..
A
~
m -
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.5.1987 of the Andhra -.,
•
Pradesh High Court in W.A. No. 672of1987.
H
P.P. Rao and P.P. Singh for the Appellant.
566
M. SATYANANDAM v. DEPUTY SECY. [MUKHARJI, J.]
567
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This petition arises out of the
judgment and order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Sree P.P.
Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of release
was bad because the authorised officer had no power to review the
..._ previous order nor he had the power to release the property of the
landlady without even giving an opportunity to the petitioner. In the
facts of this case as noted by the High Court, we are unable to entertain these contentions. We are unable to accept the contention that the
Government cannot review its own order. It is well-settled law of this
Court that in case of bona fide need subsequent events must be taken
into account if they are relevant on the question of release or possession of the premises in question. On a previous occasion the Government had declined to release the premises, later on the representation
made by the landlady the Government changed its decision. The landlady had filed an application for relea~ing the premises in her favour,
but the same was initially rejected ori 25.9. 1978. Again the landlady
made a further representation stating certain additional and fresh
circumstances, that is to say, that her son was not allowing her to live
with him in another house belonging to her. The Government took
into account the subsequent events and passed the order on 19 .3 .1980
releasing the premises in favour of the landlady. We do not see how to
take cognizance of such subsequent events releasing the premises can
be described an order in nullity in the facts of this case.
The next contention was that the petitioner was an allottee of the
premises by virtue of his being in service but the petitioner was really a
tenant of the premises in question.
A
B
c
D
E
The Government informed the petitioner to make alternative
F
arrangements or seek accommodation. The Government issued
several notices on 24.11.1978, 22.5.1979, 12.7.1979, 27.9.1970 and
17. 1.1980 to the petitioner and these facts have been stated and have
also been taken note of by the High Court in the judgment under
challenge. In spite of the said notices given to the petitioner who was
"°an allottee and who was informed about the requirement of the landG
lady, the petitioner did not choose to move out from the premises. In
the meantime, the petitioner has retired from service in 1986 and a
long time has passed now. In this case we do not think it can be said
that the order was bad because the petitioner was initially not given an
opportunity to show cause. Actually the petitioner had enough
opportunity. In the premises, the special leave petition fails and we do
H
568
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1987) 3.S.C.R.
A not find any ground to interfere with the order of the High Court.
Having regard to the facts that the petitioner had acquired government accommodation and he has stayed in the premises in question
for sometime, we allow him to make alternative arrangement by
B 31.12.1987. The order for eviction will not be executed until
•
31. 12. 1987 provided the petitioner files an undertaking in this Court -...
within four weeks from today to vacate and hand over the premises in
question.
H.L.C.
Petition dismissed.