Authorities cannot forcibly evict alleged unauthorized occupants without following due process of law.

The appellants, retired employees of Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya, challenged a notice dated 10 June 2026 requiring them to vacate University quarters on the ground that they were unauthorised occupants.

The notice stated that, upon non-compliance, the University would initiate appropriate proceedings for forcible eviction with the assistance of the district police administration.

In the connected writ petition, the appellants sought interim protection against eviction and disconnection of electricity. The learned Single Judge did not grant the requested ad interim injunction, resulting in the present appeal.

During the pendency of the matter, the electricity supply had already been disconnected.

Whether the notice dated 10 June 2026 authorised the University to forcibly evict the appellants, with police assistance or otherwise, without following due process of law.

Whether the appellants were entitled to interim protection against disconnection of electricity when the supply had already been disconnected.

Whether the learned Single Judge’s refusal to grant ad interim injunction disclosed any apparent error warranting appellate interference.

The Court applied the principle that alleged unauthorised occupants of public premises may be proceeded against under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, including the notice contemplated under Section 4(1), but eviction must be carried out only through due process of law.

A notice indicating an intention to initiate statutory eviction proceedings does not authorise forcible dispossession by the public authority or with police assistance without completion of the legally prescribed process.

An interim prayer concerning an act that has already occurred becomes infructuous, although the aggrieved party remains entitled to seek appropriate relief independently before the writ court.

The Court construed the impugned notice as a preliminary communication informing the appellants that they were allegedly unauthorised occupants and that eviction proceedings would be initiated, akin to a notice under Section 4(1) of the 1971 Act.

However, the references to “forcible” eviction and assistance from the district administration were considered inconsistent with the requirement of due process.

Relying on the University’s submission that the notice was intended only to initiate lawful proceedings, the Court clarified that it could not be used to justify forcible eviction without following the statutory process.

As the electricity had already been disconnected, the corresponding interim prayer no longer survived; the appellants were nevertheless permitted to approach the writ court for appropriate relief, subject to any lawful conditions.

In these circumstances, no apparent error was found in the Single Judge’s order warranting interference.

The Court clarified that the University could not forcibly evict the appellants, with the assistance of the district police administration or otherwise, without due process of law.

The appellants were granted liberty to seek appropriate relief from the writ court concerning the disconnection of electricity.

CAN 1 of 2026 was also disposed of, with no order as to costs.