Headnote
The reporters’ summary of the points decided. It is not part of the judgment.
UNION OF INDIA v. RESHMA VADA V AND ORS.
OCTOBER 12, 2006 [H.K. SEMA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.]
Damages/Compensation-Liability to pay-Unauthorized occupation of shops/stalls despite court's order to deliver vacant possession-Highest bidder deprived occupation of shops/stalls thereby huge loss to exchequer for wilful violation of court's order-Hence, contemnors liable to pay damages/ arrears of rent for the specified period-Estate Officer cannot exercise such power in terms of the 1971 Act since entire cause of action did not arise in a proceeding initiated under the Act-Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971---Section 7.
In a writ petition, allotment of shops/stalls was challenged on the ground of illegality. High Court directed cancellation of allotment and framing of a policy regarding allotment of shops/stalls, and that allottees in possession not selected in the allotment, to vacate the shops/stalls within three months. Pursuant thereto, the policy was revised. Tenders were invited for allotment of shops/stalls. Respondents did not participate in the tender nor their names were amongst the persons selected in the tenders opened and remained unauthorized occupants of the shops/stalls. Appellant-Union oflndia issued notices to the respondents to vacate the shops and hand over the peaceful possession but the respondents failed to do so. Thereafter, contempt petition was filed, however, the same was dropped later since the respondents delivered possession of the stalls/shops.
The present application has been filed for the direction to the respondents-contemnors to pay damages/compensation for their use and unauthorized occupation of shops/stalls in their possession. Respondents-contemnors contended that this Court is not a proper forum to grant such prayer; and that such powers can be exercised by the Estate Officer in terms of section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 7 S.C.R. Disposing of the IA's, the Court
HELD: The entire cause of action for the direction to the respondentscontemnors to pay damages/compensation for their use and unauthorized occupation of shops/stalls in their possession arose not in a proceeding initiated under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 but for wilful violation of this Court's Order. The respondents neither participated in the tender nor their names were included from amongst the select list and remained unauthorized occupants depriving the highest bidder to occupy the shops/stalls thereby incurring huge loss to the exchequer by reason of their contemptuous misbehaviour violating the order of the Highest Court of the land. This would warrant the respondents to pay rent/damages at the rate quoted by the highest bidder against their shops/stalls for their unauthorised use and occupation till the date they delivered vacant possession as per the chart furnished giving details of the arrears of rent/damages payable by the contemnors. Therefore, the respondents are directed to pay the arrears of rent/damages within the period specified.1216-A-DJ
Judgment
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : I.A. No. 54 in Contempt Petition (C) No. 158/1998. IN
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 585 of 1994. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) Ranjeet Kumar, (A.C.), Indira Sawhney, R.S. Rana, V.K. Verma and Shreekant N. Terdal for the Petitioner.
Shiv Sagar Tiwari, Krishna Kumar, M.C. Dhingra. R.N. Keshwani, Pratibha Jain, Rajiv K. Garg, Ashish Garg, K.K. Gupta, Rani Chhabra, Prem Malhotra and P. Parmeswaran for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H.K.SEMA, J. Heard the parties. Writ Petition (C) No.585 of 1994 was disposed of by this Court on I 1.10.1996 inter alia with the following directions:
"Now, to take care of this illegality, we have to take two steps. First,
U.0.1. v. RESHMA YADAV [SEMA . .I.]
cancel the allotments. To decide as to who should get the shops/ stalls, the Government would first consider whether its policy of 1994, and categorization made by it need alteration in any way. While undertaking this work, the Government would first consider whether its policy of 1994 and categorization made by it need alteration in any way. While undertaking this work, the Government would make such provisions in the policy which are just and fair. After the policy has been framed the shops/stalls would be allotted as per the policy by following a procedure having the sanction of law. In case it would be that any of the present allottee would not be the person so selected, he/she shall be asked to vacate the shop/stall by giving three months time. We should require the Government to formulate the policy within two months and thereafter to complete the exercise of allotment within two months. Till then the present allottees would be allowed to continue. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the policy was revised by an Order dated 9.12.1996. The dispute involved is with regard to allotment of shop/ stalls in Lodhi Road Complex I and II, New Delhi. The tenders were called. The tenders were opened in the presence of tenderers on 24.2.1997 at 3.00 P.M. As no tenders were received in respect of 6 shops/stalls in Lodhi Road Complex-II, New Delhi on 24.2.1997. Further tenders were invited in respect of the said 6 shops/stalls, which were opened in the presence of tenderers on 26.5.1997. However, no tender was received in respect of one shop (shop No. I, Lodhi Road Compiex-11, New Delhi). Therefore, fresh tenders were invited in respect of shop No. I but no tender was received. Therefore, again tender was held on 24.4.1998 in respect of Lodhi Road Complex-II, New Delhi. Undisputedly, in the aforesaid tenders the respondents numbering 31 either did not participate or find place amongst the persons so selected in tenders opened on 24.2.1997 and 26.5.1997. They were asked to vacate the shops/stalls noted against their names and hand over the peaceful and vacant possession to the concerned CPWD within three months from the date of issuance of notice.
Having failed to comply with the notices, Contempt Petition (C) No.158 of 1998 was initiated against the respondents. However, the same was dropped by an order dated 13th December, 200 I since the vacant possession was already delivered. The order dated 13th December, 2001 was in the following terms:-
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SU 'P. 7 S.C.R.
"Since the possession has already been delivered, the contempt proceeding is dropped". 1.A.No.54 has been filed by Union of India for direction to the alleged contemnors to pay damages/compensation for their use and unauthorised occupation of shops/stalls in their possession, after the orders of this Court. This Court issued notice to the respondents in I.A.No.54 on 16.9.2002. On 14.3.2005 this Court passed the following order:"The applicant-Union of India is directed to file a chart, within two weeks, giving the date of vacation of each of the respondents and the amount due till date of vacation. The chart shall indicate the date of which respective respondents were required to vacate and also the date of actual vacation along with the rate at which the arrears have been calculated''.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, Union of India filed a detailed chart giving the date of vacation of each of the respondents and amount due till the date of vacation. The date of which respondents were required to vacate and also the date of actual vacation along with the rate at which the arrears have been calculated. The chart detailing the arrears of rent/damages payable by the contemnors is as follows:-
DETAILS OF ARREARS OF DAMAGES PAYABLE BY THE CONTEMNORS S.No. Shop/ Name of Stall No. Contemnor/ Occupant
Date on which respondents were required to vacate
Date of actual arrears calculated at the vacation
Rate quoted by highest bidder (Rs.)
Amount due till the date of vacation (Rs.)
I.
Smt. Reshma Yadav
G 2.
Shop No. 8 LRC.I
Sh. Sant Lal Yadav
Shop No. 9 LRC-1
Smt. Tara Chowdhary
16.550/- 868324/-
U.0.1. v. RESH MA YADAV [SEMA, J.]
Shop No.10 LRC.I
Km. N. Lalitha
I0.893/- 772771/-
Shop No.12 LRC-1
Sh. Deepak Kumar
12.100/- 589856/-
Smt. Neena Totalani
Sh.lntezar Ahmed
Mrs. Shahnaz 25.6.97 Bano
Sh.Sudhir Tiwari
17. 7.2001
Smt.Renu Mathur
Smt.Harvinder Kaur
Stall No.JO LRC-1
Sh.Harish
Sh.Ashutosh Bhardwaj
Sh.Banarasi Dass c
A 15.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 7 S.C.R. Stall No.16 LRC-1
Sh.Jai Prakash 25.6.97 Gupta
Sh. Percy Pater 25.6.97 James
17. 7.2001
Sh.Harpreet Singh
Sh. Madan Mohan Sharma c 18. Stall No. 19 LRC-1
Shop No.I LRC.11
Sh.Karma Doorjee
12,605/- 585375/-
Smt.Asha Singh
Sh.Dhanna Bahadur
Sh.KP Singh
Stall No.I LRC.11
Sh.SS Sharma
Smt.Madhu
Sh.Gurbax Lal
U.O.l. v. RESHMA YADAV[SEMA,J.]
Sh.Gulshan Dhawan
Shop No.3 Hanuman Road
Sh. Ashish Kumar
Smt.Pushpa Devi Sing
Sh.Sushi I Sinha
Smt.Kusum Sharma
Shop No.2 Hanuman Road
Smt. Tulsi Balodi c 16.12.1998
Mr. Ranjeet Kumar learned amicus curiae appearing for Union of India contended that the respondents contumaciously flouted the orders passed by this Court by remaining unauthorized occupants of shops/stalls and they are liable to pay the damages/arrears for the period they have occupied the shops/stalls unauthorisedly till the vacant possession was delivered to the applicant. Per contra learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that this Court is not a proper forum to grant such prayer. According to learned counsel, such powers can be exercised by the Estate Officer in terms
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP 7 S.C.R.
A of Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act,
1971 (hereinafter the Act). We are unable to countenance with this contention of the respondents. The entire cause of action as recited above arose not in a proceeding initiated under the Act but for willful violation of this Court's Order. The fact remained that the respondents neither participated in the tender nor their names were included from amongst the select list and remained unauthorized occupants depriving the highest bidder to occupy the shop/ stall thereby incurring huge loss to the exchequer by reason of their contemptuous misbehaviour violating the order of the Highest Court of the land would warrant to pay rent/damages at the rate quoted by the highest bidder against their shops/stalls for their unauthorised use and occupation till the date they delivered vacant possession as per the chart furnished by the learned amicus curiae.
In the result I.A.No.54 is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay the arrears of rent/damages as per the chart within a period of two months from today. If the amounts are not paid within the stipulated time, the petitioner D would be entitled to recover the respective amounts from the respective respondents by all available coercive procedures. In that event, the respondents would be liable to pay interest at 6% per annum on the amounts payable from the date of this order till its recovery. I.A.No.54 is allowed and disposed of accordingly. N.J.
I.A.S. disposed of.