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

Citation: [1987] 3 S.C.R. 566 · Decided: 17-07-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

---
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 Govern-
ment 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 con-
tending 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 enter-
tain 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 posses-
sion of the premises in question. On a previous occasion the Govern-
ment had declined to release the premises, later on the representation 
made by the landlady the Government changed its decision. The land-
lady 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 land-
G 
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 b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.