S.D. BANDI versus DIVISIONAL TRAFFIC OFFICER, KSRTC & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 17 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 05-07-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 17 S.C.R. 1 
S.D.BANDI 
v. 
DIVISIONAL TRAFFIC OFFICER, KSRTC & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4064 of 2004) 
JULY05, 2013 
[P. SATHASIVAMAND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 
1971-ss. 2(e), 2(g), 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 11Aand14-Unauthorised 
occupation of Government accommodation beyond the period of 
allotment- Grievances relating thereto-Held: It cannot be said that c 
at present there is no machinery to check eviction of unauthorized 
occupants as well as recovery of arrears of rent including penal 
charges- However, 1nspite of existing provisions! rules, directions 
etc., persons from all the three branches of the State either by their 
influence or by lengthy procedure as provided in the Act, continue to 
slay in the government accommodation by paying paltry amount D 
either by way of rent or penalty- In the circumstances, in addition to 
the statutory provisions, there is need to frame guidelines for the 
benefit of both Union of India/States and Union Territories for better 
utilization of their premises- Suggestions accordingly given by the 
Supreme Court to precisely address the grievances of the Centre E 
and the State governments in regard to the unauthorized occupants 
-Fundamental Rules-FR 45, 45A and 458- Supplementary Rules 
- SR 317-8-11 (2) and 317-8-22. 
The appellant was working as a Driver in the State Road 
Transport Corporation. He was transferred to another city. 
Challenging the order of transfer, the appellant filed Reference 
F 
before the Industrial Tribunal. At the same time, he did not 
vacate the government quarter allotted to him. The competent 
officer under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of 
Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 passed order of eviction 
against the appellant. The order of eviction was confirmed by 
G 
the District Judge in appeal. Aggrieved, the appellant filed writ 
petition before the High Court which was allowed. The 
respondent-Corporation preferred Writ Appeal which was 
allowed by the impugned order and the appellant was directed 
1 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 17 S.C.R. 
A 
to vacate the government quarter within a stipulated time. 
Challenging the said order, the appellant came up before 
this Court by way of special leave. This Court dismissed the 
appeal and directed the competent officer of the Corporation 
to at once evict the appellant from the quarter. Pursuantto the 
B 
said order, this Court, taking note of the factthat in government 
quarters, unauthorisedly, people are continuing for years 
together to the detriment of the persons who are entitled to 
occupy the same and also thatthe same is the position in most 
of the State capitals and Head quarters of the Union Territories, 
issued notices to the Union of India, all the States and the 
C Union Territories with a direction to furnish the list of such 
unauthorized occupants of government quarters in the State 
capitals and Head quarters of Union Territories belonging to 
all the three limbs of the State, viz., the Legislature, the 
Executive and the Judiciary. This Court further directed to 
0 
furnish all the details including names of such persons, details 
of quarters, period of unauthorized occupancy, steps taken for 
vacation and its result etc., and also that in case no steps have 
been taken, reasons for such inaction. 
E 
F 
In order to eliminate the problem and frame workable 
guidelines in addition to the existing statutory provisions, this 
Court appointed amicus curiae to assistthe Court. Theamicus 
curiae submitted report and suggested guidelines to be issued 
by this Court in regard to unauthorized occupation of 
government houses. 
Disposing of the matter, the Supreme Court 
HELD: 1.1. The occupation of government houses/quarters 
beyond the period prescribed causes difficulty in 
accommodating other persons waiting for allotment and, 
therefore, the Government is at a loss on the one hand in not 
being able to accommodate those persons who are in need and 
G on the other is unable to effectively deal with the persons who 
continue to occupy unauthorisedly beyond the period 
prescribed. [Para 1] [6-D-E] 
H 
1.2. Despite the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised 
Occupants) Act, 1971, it is seen that it has not been effective 
S.D. SANDI v. DIVISIONAL TRAFFIC OFFICER, 
3 
KSRTC 
enough in dealing with the eviction inasmuch as the competent 
A 
Authority, i.e., Estate Officer has to first initiate proceedings 
and pass

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.