Krishna Chakraborty vs. State Of Meghalaya
AI Summary
Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
Disposed
Before:
Hon'ble Honble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew
Listed On:
1 Nov 2021
Order Text
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
| WP(C)<br>No.<br>311<br>of 2021<br>with<br>WP(C) No. 312<br>of 2021<br>WP(C) No. 313<br>of 2021 | Date of Decision: 01.11.2021 | |
|---|---|---|
| Shri Jayanta Kumar Deb | Vs. | State of Meghalaya & Anr. |
| Shri Bidyut Roy | Vs. | State of Meghalaya & Anr. |
| Smti Krishna Chakraborty | Vs. | State of Meghalaya & Anr. |
| Coram: | ||
| Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge | ||
| Appearance: | ||
| For the Petitioner(s)<br>: | Mr. L.R. Das, Adv. with | |
| Ms. M. Chakraborty, Adv. | ||
| For the Respondent(s)<br>: | Ms. S. Bhattacharjee, GA (For R 1) | |
| Mr. S. Sen, SC MTC<br>(For R 2) | ||
| i)<br>Whether approved for reporting in<br>Yes/No | ||
| Law journals etc.: | ||
| ii)<br>Whether approved for publication |
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
in press: Yes/No
-
These three analogous matters impugning the notice dated 24.08.2021 issued by the respondent MTC being similar in nature are being sought to be disposed of by this common judgment and order.
-
The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are the tenants under the respondent No. 2 occupying the premises leased out to them for a certain period of time, as per their respective lease agreements.
WP(C) No. 311 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 312 of 2021 WP(C) No. 313 of 2021 Page 1 of 4 3. The writ petitioners are aggrieved with the impugned notice wherein they have been asked to vacate the premises and hand-over vacant possession thereof within a period of 60(sixty) days from the receipt of the notice, failing which proceedings under the Meghalaya Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 1980 would be initiated against them.
-
Heard Mr. L.R. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners who submits that the actions of the respondents are absolutely illegal and not in consonance with the due process, inasmuch as, the respondent No. 2 has initiated eviction proceedings from the premises without following the due process of law, by threatening them with action under the The Meghalaya Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 1980.
-
On the question as to whether the writ petition under Article 226 will lie in such matters, Mr. L.R. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd., & Ors. vs. Union of India reported in (1986) 1 SCC 133, and maintains that the judgment so rendered is applicable to determine the issue in the present case. As such, he prays that the impugned notice be quashed and set aside.
-
Mr. S. Sen, learned Standing counsel for the respondent No. 2, at the outset submits that the writ petition by itself is premature, inasmuch as, no proceedings as alleged under the Meghalaya Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 1980 have been
WP(C) No. 311 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 312 of 2021 WP(C) No. 313 of 2021 Page 2 of 4 initiated, and in fact the impugned notice, is only a notice to vacate, inasmuch as, the lease agreement entered into between the respondent No. 2 with the writ petitioner has since expired. He further submits that as per the provision of Section 2 (h) (i) of the Meghalaya Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 1980 wherein "Unauthorized Occupation" has been defined, he submits it includes the continuance in occupation by any person of the public premises after the lease/authority for which he is allowed to occupy has expired, or has been determined by one reason or the other. Learned counsel further submits that the writ petition is not maintainable and the same deserves no consideration.
-
I have heard learned counsels for the parties.
-
It is seen that the only bone of contention is with the notice issued to the petitioner to vacate the premises. On perusal of the notice it clearly reflects that no action has yet been taken in pursuance to the same, and it is only a warning that the respondent No. 2 would be constrained to initiate proceedings under the said Act, if the petitioners do not vacate the premises in their occupation.
-
Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case as it pertains, presently no case has been made out for interference under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the writ petitioners have adequate alternative remedy to resort to, in the event that eviction proceedings under the Act are initiated. Furthermore, it is understood that before any action is taken by the respondent No. 2 in furtherance of their objectives, due process of law is to be followed and the petitioner be given
WP(C) No. 311 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 312 of 2021 WP(C) No. 313 of 2021 Page 3 of 4 adequate opportunity in the said proceedings. There not being any other point in issue, nothing remains for adjudication before this Court.
- Accordingly, with the above noted directions, these writ petitions are disposed of.
JUDGE
WP(C) No. 311 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 312 of 2021 WP(C) No. 313 of 2021
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order