SIBA PRASAD DAS vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Item No. 20
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
HEARD ON : 03.09.2026
DELIVERED ON : 03.09.2026
CORAM:
THE HON ’ BLE JUSTICE PARTHA SARATHI SEN
WPA/20668/2026
SRI SIBA PRASAD DAS
VS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Appearance:-
Ms. Priti Banerjee
…For Petitioner
Ms. Sipra Chanda
…For Respondent No.1
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by The Hon'ble Justice Partha
Sarathi Sen)
1. Affidavit-of-service as filed on behalf of the writ petitioner is
taken on record.
2. The petitioner and the respondent/ Union of India are
represented by their respective learned counsel.

2
3. None appears on behalf of the respondent nos.2 to 6 despite
service.
4. In this judicial review the subject matter of challenge is the
judgment dated 29.07.2026 as passed in Misc. Appeal No.08
of 2021 (Sri Siba Prasad Das vs. The Alloy Steels Plant) by the
learned District Judge, Paschim Bardhaman under Section 9
of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants)
Act, 1971 (“the said Act” in short).

5. At the time of hearing learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the writ petitioner submits before this Court that both the
Estate Officer while passing the order of eviction dated
16.06.2018, which was impugned in the said appeal, and the
learned District Judge by the impugned judgment dated
29.07.2026 have miserably failed to visualize that the
respondent no.3 authority had made discrimination with the
present writ petitioner in not allotting a quarter as prayed for
by the writ petitioner after his retirement though there exists
a scheme of the respondent no.3 authority for allotment of
such quarter even after retirement of an employee.
6. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner,
however, submits that in the instant writ petition she has not

3
annexed a copy of the memo of appeal preferred before the
learned District Judge, Paschim Bardhaman to substantiate
her contention.
7. On careful perusal of the impugned judgment dated
29.07.2026 it, however, appears that no such grounds have
been taken by the writ petitioner herein in the said appeal
before the learned District Judge. It rather appears that
before the learned District Judge in Misc. Appeal No.08 of
2021 the writ petitioner has challenged the authority of the
Estate Officer to pass an order of eviction dated 16.06.2018.
It further appears that in the said appeal the writ petitioner
also took a ground that even after his retirement he is not
duty bound to surrender vacant possession of the allotted
quarter. An additional ground has also been taken that till
disposal of his prayer for allotment of a separate quarter, the
Estate Officer has no authority to pass order of eviction
against him since it has been placed before the Estate Officer
as well as before the Appellate Court that the writ petitioner
on medical ground is occupying the said quarter as allotted to
him even after his retirement.

4
8. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner
further submits that the judgment under judicial review is
perverse and having no legal sanctity and is required to be set
aside.
9. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Union of India
supports the impugned judgment.
10. At the very outset, this Court must not be unmindful that
sitting in a judicial review this Court sitting in Writ
jurisdiction is not supposed to act as a Court of Appeal and,
therefore, this Court shall not interfere with the impugned
order unless it is shown that the judgment impugned suffers
from material illegality and/or irregularity and/or the decision
making process of the Judge/authority has been vitiated for
non-consideration of material facts which are available on
record and/or the impugned judgment has been passed by
the Court/authority by considering the materials which are
extraneous in nature.
11. This Court has meticulously gone through the impugned
judgment dated 29.07.2026 as passed in Misc. Appeal No.08
of 2021. It appears that the first Appellate Court while
disposing the said appeal duly considered the reported

5
decision of the Hon’ble High Court at Chattishgarh and
Bilaspur in Writ Appeal no.76 of 2013 ( Bharat Prasad
Sharma vs. Chairman-cum-Managing Director and others)
as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Cantonment Board & Anr. vs. Church of North
India reported in AIR 2011 SC 2339 . It appears that the
first Appellate Court keeping in mind the spirit of the
aforementioned reported decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of
Chattisgarh came to a logical finding that the respondent no.6
authority, being the Estate Officer, was quite competent to
entertain the proceeding under Section 5(1) of the said Act.
Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner
could not show any contrary material to substantiate that the
finding of the first Appellate Court in this regard is either
perverse or is not justifiable in the eye of law.
12. It further appears from the impugned judgment dated
29.07.2026 vis-à-vis the order of eviction under Section 5(1) of
the said Act dated 16.06.2018 that both the first Appellate
Court and the Estate Officer came to a concurrent factual
findings that the quarter in question, which is still in

6
occupation of the writ petitioner, was allotted to the writ
petitioner in lieu of his service. It is undisputed that the writ
petitioner has already retired from his service and both the
first Appellate Court and the Estate Officer also came to
concurrent factual findings based on prevailing allotment
rules of the quarter that an allottee of an employee on
completion of his service is duty bound to handover the
quarter as allotted to him. In this regard the Estate Officer
and the first Appellate Court placed their reliance upon Rule 8
of House Allotment Rules issued by the Steel Authority India
Limited.
13. The learned First Appellate Court has also noticed that
simply because the writ petitioner is paying electricity and
water charges that does not entail him to occupy the quarter
in question sine die.

14. This Court thus in absence of any perversity and/or glaring
illegality finds no reason to interfere with such factual finding
in the impugned judgment dated 29.07.2026 as passed by the
learned District Judge, Paschim Bardhaman in Misc. Appeal
No.08 of 2021.

7
15. Consequently, the instant writ petition is dismissed with
cost of Rs.2,50,000/- (rupees two lacs fifty thousand only),
which is to be paid by the writ petitioner to the respondent
no.2 authority positively within thirty working days from
passing of this order. Such exemplary cost is imposed upon
the writ petitioner since the writ petitioner is in unlawful
occupation of the public premises in question for a period of
more than nine years without any justification.

16. With the aforementioned observations, the impugned
judgment dated 29.07.2026 as passed in Misc. Appeal no.08
of 2021 by the learned District Judge, Paschim Bardhaman is
hereby affirmed.
17. In the event the writ petitioner fails and/or neglects to quit,
vacate and deliver up khas and vacant possession of the
premises bearing no.29/18, Joydev Avenue, B-Zone,
Durgapur Steel Tounship, Durgapur-713205 within fifteen
days from the day of passing this judgement, the competent
authority of the respondents shall execute the order dated
16.06.2018 as passed by the Estate Officer in Case No.Estate-
QB/14/2017 soon thereafter.

8
18. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for,
be delivered to the learned advocates for the parties, upon
compliance of all formalities.
(PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.)
RP(AR.CT.)