Eviction based on a behind-the-back inquiry requires fresh inquiry and hearing of the allottee.

The petitioner, a Government Primary School teacher, was allotted Government Quarter No. G-28, Rajghat Colony, Datia, by order dated 24.09.2025, after the previous occupant’s superannuation, at a monthly rent and water charge of ₹610. He claimed to have taken possession on 01.12.2025 and to have regularly paid rent.

On 26.08.2026, the respondents directed cancellation of the allotment and vacation of the quarter on the basis of a Scrutiny Committee’s report. The respondents alleged that the petitioner was in arrears of rent for eight months, had permitted one P.K. Hajela to occupy the quarter, and was not himself residing there.

The petitioner contended that the enquiry had been conducted behind his back without notice or opportunity of hearing, that the allegations were disputed and baseless, and that eviction could occur only after compliance with the M.P. Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974.

The State maintained that a show-cause notice dated 22.08.2026 had been issued, but the petitioner had not submitted a reply.

Whether the cancellation of the petitioner’s allotment and proposed eviction, based on an enquiry conducted without associating the petitioner, could be sustained in law?

Whether the respondents were required to conduct a fresh enquiry by granting the petitioner an opportunity of hearing before taking further action against him?

Whether the Court should restrain the respondents from taking action on the basis of the show-cause notice pending such fresh enquiry?

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to examine the legality of the administrative action.

It applied the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, particularly the requirement that a person affected by an adverse administrative decision must be given a meaningful opportunity of hearing before the decision is acted upon.

The Court also considered the petitioner’s reliance on the M.P. Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974, including the statutory procedure for eviction from public premises, but ultimately directed a fresh departmental enquiry and stated that the competent authority would not be required to resort to any other law if action was found necessary on the basis of the enquiry report.

The Court found that the petitioner’s allotment was undisputed, but the allegations of rent arrears, subletting, and non-residence involved factual questions that could not be conclusively determined on the existing record.

Although the State relied on the show-cause notice dated 22.08.2026, the material before the Court indicated that the underlying committee enquiry had been conducted without calling or hearing the petitioner.

Since the impugned action was founded on an enquiry conducted behind the petitioner’s back, the Court considered it necessary to secure procedural fairness by directing a fresh enquiry in the petitioner’s presence.

The Court therefore refrained from deciding the truth of the allegations or finally adjudicating the legality of the allotment, while protecting the petitioner from immediate action pending completion of the fresh process.

Until completion of that process, no action was to be taken against the petitioner on the basis of the show-cause notice dated 22.08.2026.

The committee was directed to complete the exercise within 15 days, and the respondents were permitted to take further action, if warranted, within one week of receiving the report.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.