Private entities occupying government buildings lack legal entitlement to resist eviction notices issued by competent authorities.

The appellant, a private music college registered under the Society Registration Act, 1973, operated out of a government building purportedly allotted by the Municipal Corporation in 1980.

On 27-01-2026, the Block Education Officer (Respondent No. 4) issued a notice directing the appellant to vacate the premises within two days.

The appellant challenged this notice in WPC No. 507 of 2026. The learned Single Judge disposed of the petition on 09-02-2026, holding that since a private college was occupying a government building, the eviction notice was valid, though pulsed the execution by granting 7 days for the appellant to make alternative arrangements due to ongoing examinations.

The appellant preferred this writ appeal, contending that the Block Education Officer lacked the authority to issue the eviction notice as the initial allotment was made by the Municipal Corporation.

1. Whether the order of the learned Single Judge affirming the eviction notice issued by the Block Education Officer suffered from legal infirmity warranting interference in an intra-court appeal.

2. Whether the Block Education Officer had the authority to direct a private institute to vacate a government building despite a prior allotment by the Municipal Corporation.

The Court applied the principle governing intra-court appeals, which dictates that interference is not warranted unless "palpable infirmities" are noticed in the Single Judge's order.

The Court also took cognizance of administrative law principles regarding the occupancy of public property, implying that private entities do not possess an indefinite right to occupy government buildings without contemporary valid authorization.

The Division Bench evaluated the appellant’s claim that the Block Education Officer lacked jurisdiction. However, the Court found that the appellant failed to produce any contemporary material or valid legal grounds to substantiate a continuing right to occupy the government premises.

The Court observed that the learned Single Judge had already balanced the interests of the students by granting a 7-day extension for examinations despite the imminent eviction notice. Since the institute was a private entity operating in a government facility, the Court reasoned that the Single Judge’s decision was backed by "cogent and justifiable reasons".

The appellant failed to demonstrate any "palpable infirmity" in the primary judgment that would justify an intervention under the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court.

The Court held that there were no sufficient grounds to interfere with the directive to vacate the government building.