@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
K. Chandru, J.@mdashBoth the writ petitions are filed by All India Trade Union Congress (for short AITUC) represented by its General
Secretary M. Sekar.
2. In W.P. No. 12624 of 2009, the petitioner Trade Union sought to quash the order of the second respondent -Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-
Sub Divisional Magistrate, Cuddalore dated 13.06.2009. By the said order, the second respondent, who is also the Sub-Divisional Magistrate put
a seal in the office premises of the petitioner Trade Union situated at No. D/13, Block No. 24, Mahatma Gandhi Salai, Neyveli Town. It is the
stand of the second respondent that the said premises was given to be used as a Trade Union office of United Workers Union by the third
respondent and had given control over the said building. Subsequently, difference of opinion have been cropped up between two factions, i.e. one
led by P. Kuppusamy and the other led by M. Sekar (the petitioner herein). The said officer called the parties for a discussion on 13.06.2009 and
no compromise was arrived at during the talks. Therefore, the officer felt that there is scope for clashes between two groups, which may likely to
create problem and public peace may be hindered. In order to maintain law and in view of the urgency of the situation, he exercised power u/s 144
of Code of Criminal Procedure and directed the Tahsildar, Panruti to put a seal to the building with effect from 13.06.2009. A further direction
was also given to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Neyveli Township to give protection to the said building.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that it is a registered All India Federation of Trade Unions and having units in various districts and states. The
premises in which the seal was affixed was given to the Union to be used as Union office since the year 1960 and from then onwards, the
petitioner''s Union has been functioning. It is claimed that NLC United Workers Union and NLC Jeeva Contract Workers Union have got
themselves affiliated to the petitioner Federation. The Union representing the contract workmen claimed certain benefits arising out of the
Memorandum of Understanding between that Union and the third respondent NLC on 16.06.2008 before the Chief Labour Commissioner, New
Delhi. Since the terms of MOU was not given effect to, the Jeeva Contract Workers Union gave a strike notice and conciliation talks were in
progress. During that time, the NLC United Workers Union took disciplinary action against certain office bearers and expelled them from Union.
The fact of such expulsion was also intimated to the third respondent NLC. However, the third respondent Management manipulated the situation
and gave false complaint to the police and other authorities and got unauthorised letter in the name of United Workers Union to the second
respondent and it is at their instigation, the impugned order came to be passed.
4. It was also stated that when the petitioner''s are occupying the premises, the question of affixing the seal u/s 144 Cr.P.C. will not arise. The
action of the respondents in preventing the activities of the petitioner Union is violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It was further
submitted that any order passed u/s 144 Cr.P.C. will be valid only for a period of two years and it has no validity beyond that date. Therefore, the
petitioner gave a representation dated 13.06.2009 and requested them to take further action to revoke the order passed u/s 144 Cr.P.C. It was
also stated that without any justification, the third respondent had disconnected the power and water supply to the premises pursuant to the sealing
of the premises. It was further stated that the third respondent was attempting to demolish the temporary structure put up in the sealed premises,
which was initially allotted to the petitioner Union. Such structures have also been put up by other Trade Unions who were given allotment for
running their Union and the petitioner cannot be singled out for having put up the temporary structures. Their Union since the year 1960 had grown
from strength to strength. There was necessity to have an expanded office space and therefore, such structures were put up. It was also stated that
the Union records which are vitally required by the Union have been kept inside the locked and sealed premises which will in effect bring the union
activities to face many difficulties.
5. Notice of motion was ordered on 09.07.2009. Notice was taken on behalf of the third respondent. In the mean while, the petitioner moved this
Court under the criminal jurisdiction with Crl.R.C. No. 577 of 2009, challenging the order passed by the second respondent u/s 397 and 401 of
Cr.P.C. It must be noted that the faction allegedly led by P. Kuppusamy never took any steps to challenge the order of sealing the premises.
Perhaps, they were happy with such a situation. The criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner came to be disposed of by a final order dated
20.08.2009. In paragraphs 7 and 8, it was observed as follows:
7. This Court considered the submissions of all the parties and perused the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and also the counter
filed by the respondents. It appears that there is some dispute among the members of the union. The Revenue Divisional Officer has also taken
steps to convene the meeting and called both the parties. As no compromise was arrived between the parties, the Revenue Divisional Officer has
invoked the provisions u/s 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and passed the order. Now at this stage, this Court does not want to go into the
merits of the order passed by the learned Revenue Divisional Officer cum Sub Divisional Magistrate, since any order passed u/s 144 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure shall not remain in force for more than two months and Section 144(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows:
No order under this Section shall remain in force for more than two months from the making thereof.
8. The impugned order is dated 13.06.2009 and period of two months had already expired. As per Section 144(4) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, it is to be construed that the order passed by the learned Revenue Divisional Officer cum Sub Divisional Magistrate, does not remain in
force as on date. In the said circumstances, it is for the parties to work out the remedies as provided under law.
6. Therefore, in the light of Section 144(4) and the order of the second respondent RDO having come to an end by virtue of the orders passed by
this Court in Crl.R.C. No. 577 of 2009 dated 20.08.2009, the seal affixed in the premises of the petitioner Union should have been removed and
the possession should have to be handed over to the petitioner Union. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the second respondent RDO by
an order dated 25.08.2009 after referring to the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure directed the Tahsildar, Panruti to re-open the premises.
7. But however in order to forestall the order passed by the second respondent, the respondent (Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd.) issued an
order dated 29.08.2009 taking the possession of the premises and issued a public notification dated 29.08.2009. The order signed by the Estate
Officer (who is also the Assistant Township Executive Officer, Neyveli Township) warned anyone from trespassing into the property. It is this
order which came to be challenged by the same union in W.P. No. 18182 of 2009. When the matter came up on 08.09.2009, the learned
Counsel for NLC took notice and this Court directed the present writ petition to be heard along with the earlier writ petition W.P. No. 12624 of
2009. Accordingly, both the writ petitions came to be clubbed together.
8. On behalf of the faction led by P.Kuppusamy, an impleading application was filed in M.P. No. 3 of 2009 and the same was also ordered by this
Court. In the meanwhile, the NLC United Workers Union affiliated to AITUC represented by its General Secretary M. Edward Raj also filed an
application to implead them as respondent in M.P. No. 4 of 2009 and that was also ordered on the same day.
9. On behalf of the Estate Officer of the NLC, a counter affidavit dated 16.09.2009 was also filed. The impleaded third respondent Union had
filed a typed set of papers.
10. Heard the arguments of Mr. M. Devaraj, learned Counsel for the petitioner in both the writ petitions, Mr. N.A.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for
the Neyveli Lignite Corporation, Mr. R. Neelakantan, learned Government Advocate for the revenue authorities, Mr. Balan Haridas, learned
Counsel for the union led by Mr. P. Kuppusamy and Mr. A. Palaniappan, learned Counsel for NLC United Workers Union and perused the
records.
11. In so far as W.P. No. 12624 of 2009 is concerned, the subject matter of the writ petition has become infructuous, in view of the order passed
by the RDO, Cuddalore dated 25.08.2009. Therefore, the legality or otherwise of the proceedings initiated u/s 144 Cr.P.C. is not gone into.
12. The second writ petition W.P. No. 18182 of 2009 largely revolved around the action taken by the NLC Limited in taking possession of the
premises of the petitioner union and the legality of the order passed by the Estate Officer. In normal circumstances, when an order u/s 144 Cr.P.C
is revoked, the premises will have to be handed over to the person who were in custody immediately preceding the issuance of notice. Anticipating
such a legal consequence, the NLC limited has come forward to claim possession of the said premises by the impugned notice dated 29.08.2009
even before the Tahsildar, Panruti could remove the seal and hand over the premises who were entitled to get lawful possession. Therefore, the
prima facie action of the Estate Officer in possessing the property by putting their own lock and their taking possession cannot be authorised under
law. Their attempt to put their own lock would amount to overreaching the jurisdiction of this Court especially when they had taken notice in the
earlier writ petition on 09.07.2009 and the matter was pending further orders. It would also amount to nullify to the order passed by the Sub-
Divisional Executive Magistrate dated 25.08.2009 which only authorised the Tahsildar, Panruti to remove the seal.
13. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent NLC, they have taken a stand that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that
NLC United Workers Union had not challenged the impugned proceedings dated 29.08.2009 to which Union alone the premises was allotted. A
further stand was also taken that u/s 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, (for short Act) an appeal is
provided. Therefore, the impugned notice cannot be challenged. It is further stated that the petitioner Union is not a registered body as per the
provisions of the Trade Union Act and it is not a legal entity to file and prosecute such writ petition. It was further stated that the premises in No.
D/13, Block No. 24, Mahatma Gandhi Salai, Neyveli Town was allotted to United Workers Union presently, re-named as NLC United Workers
Union (impleaded 4th respondent) on 11.12.1975. The said union was admittedly affiliated to AITUC. The allotment of the premises was for
conducting the Union activities in accordance with law. It was also stated that though the petitioner Union was dealt with by NLC in some of its
correspondences, they cannot claim to be in lawful possession of the premises which was in effect allotted to one of its unit of the petitioner
Federation. It was also stated that during the inspection of the building by the Building Inspectors, it was found that a shed in front of the building
was put up with hollow block wall and also an open shed with AC Sheets. A separate thatched shed was also put in the rear side which has been
used as a Watchman''s residence without permission. Since the constructions noted were done without any permission or authorisation, a notice
dated 06.03.2009 was issued to the allottee. The said notice was received by P. Kuppusamy, claiming to be the General Secretary of the NLC
United Workers Union.
14. It is claimed by the NLC that the address in the notice was erroneously described as the General Secretary/AITUC. Despite notice, the
person in possession have not rectified the illegal constructions. Therefore, notice in Form AB u/s 5B(1) of the Act was issued to the NLC United
Workers Union who was the allottee/licencee. But once again, it was addressed to the General Secretary/AITUC namely, the petitioner Union.
The said notice was served on 18.06.2009 and since there was no reply, the Estate Officer being the Statutory authority decided to seal the
premises and accordingly, issued the impugned proceedings. It is further stated that the inter union rivalry between the petitioner Union and the
other group created law and order problem, which was also another reason to seal the premises. It was further stated that there was a dispute
between the members of the petitioner Union and the faction led by the present petitioner were forcibly attempting to occupy the subject quarter
from the allottee namely, the NLC United Workers Union and complaints and counter complaints are pending with the Inspector of Police,
Neyveli Township Police Station. He had also received a letter from the faction led by P. Kuppusamy dated 16.06.2009 requesting the premises
to be sealed and electricity as well as water connection to be disconnected.
15. In their anxiety to buttress their illegal stand, in Paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit, the Estate Officer had made a startling statement that an
order u/s 144 Cr.P.C cannot be challenged in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court on the criminal side and such order can be challenged only in
a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also stated that the NLC was not made as a party in the criminal revision. It was further
claimed that by virtue of order u/s 144 Cr.P.C., electricity as well as water supply to the premises was disconnected on 01.07.2009. It was further
stated that the functioning of the petitioner Union with its two units is obstructing the traffic and creating nuisance. There were also complaints from
the residents regarding the functioning of the Union.
16. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the faction led by P. Kuppusamy has filed a suit in the name of NLC United Workers Union before
the District Munsif Court at Neyveli in C.S. No. 107 of 2009 and an injunction against the other group was also sought for. But no interim orders
were granted. It is further claimed that the second respondent Estate Officer is a competent authority and only after notice, the premises was
sealed. With reference to the MOU relating to the Contract Labourers issues, the matter is pending before the Supreme Court.
17. On behalf of the Union led by P. Kuppusamy, the third respondent, it was claimed that the NLC United Workers Union is a registered union
with Registration No. SAT/40 and the petitioner has no locus standi to move this Court. If at all, it can only by NLC United Workers Union of
which P. Kuppusamy was the General Secretary and he has about 110 members in his Union. The general body of the Union was held on
15.02.2009 and the said P. Kuppusamy and the officer bearers were unanimously elected on the same day. He is also the honorary Secretary of
the Contract Workers Union. He had also field a suit in O.S. No. 107 of 2009 seeking for a declaration that the notice published regarding his
expulsion was illegal and also sought for consequential injunction restraining him from interfering with his duties. But however no interim orders
have been passed in the suit.
18. In the said affidavit sworn by P. Kuppusamy on behalf of NLC United Workers Union (R3) there is no reference to his having received any
notice dated 06.03.2008 asking the Union to remove/demolish the unauthorised construction as well as the show cause notice issued u/s 5B(1) of
the Act dated 18.06.2009 and also the fact of his having sent any letter dated 16.06.2009 asking the NLC Management to disconnect the
electricity and water supply. The further stand of the R3 Union was that the premises was opened on 29.08.2009 after the order of the RDO and
immediately, the Estate Officer had locked the premises. It is surprising that the respondent NLC itself never stated anywhere in its counter
affidavit that the premises was opened on 29.08.2009 by any authorities of the revenue department and thereafter without handing over the
premises who were in last possession, the premises was once again locked by NLC. Therefore, a reading of the counter affidavit filed by R2 dated
16.09.2009 and R3 dated 11.09.2009 shrouds in mystery and exposes hollowness of the stand of both the parties. It is clear from the pleadings
that the faction led by P. Kuppusamy (3rd respondent) is not interested in retaining the premises to continue its trade union activities. But on the
contrary, he gave a hand to the management to create more problem for the petitioner Federation and its affiliating Unit. Therefore, this Court has
no hesitation to reject the stand of the 3rd respondent that they are the real Union to which alone the premises were allotted.
19. On the contrary, the affidavit filed by R4 in M.P. No. 4 of 2009 clearly shows that M.Edward Raj was the General Secretary of NLC United
Workers Union which was affiliated to AITUC and they have been prosecuting the dispute on behalf of the workmen i.e., both permanent as well
as the contract workers. It is also seen that on 31.05.2009, the persons who were working against the interest of the petitioner''s Union were
expelled in accordance with the by-laws and such an expulsion was not under challenge before any Court. What is under challenge before the Civil
Court was the publication which was made in the newspaper not to deal with the faction led by P.Kuppusamy. It is also stated in the affidavit that
the petitioner Union had gave a criminal complaint against the said P. Kuppusamy which is also pending investigation. The 4th respondent by
making themselves as parties is supporting the stand of the petitioner. Therefore, the jurisdictional objection raised by the NLC Management
cannot be countenanced by this Court
20. The objection that the petitioner AITUC is not a registered body and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable is without substance, the
Supreme Court in The Mumbai Kamgar Sabha, Bombay Vs. Abdulbhai Faizullabhai and Others, dealt with the case of an unregistered trade union
took all the cause of workers. In paragraphs 7 and 9, it had observed as follows:
7. ...Procedural prescriptions are hand-maids, not mistresses, of justice and failure of fair play is the spirit in which courts must view processual
deviances. Our adjectival branch of jurisprudence, by and large, deals not with sophisticated litigants but the rural poor, the urban lay and the
weaker societal segments for whom law will be an added terror if technical misdescriptions and deficiencies in drafting pleadings and setting out the
cause title create a secret weapon to non-suit a party. Where foul play is absent, and fairness is not faulted, latitude is a grace of processual justice.
Test litigations, representative actions, pro bono publico and like broadened forms of legal proceedings are in keeping with the current accent on
justice to the common man and a necessary disincentive to those who wish to bypass the real issues on the merits by suspect reliance on
peripheral, procedural shortcomings. Even Article 226, viewed in wider perspective, may be amenable to ventilation of collective or common
grievances, as distinguished from assertion of individual rights, although the traditional view, backed by precedents, has opted for the narrower
alternative. Public interest is promoted by a spacious construction of locus standi in our socio-economic circumstances and conceptual
latitudinarianism permits taking liberties with individualisation of the right to invoke the higher courts where the remedy is shared by a considerable
number, particularly when they are weaker. Less litigation, consistent with fair process, is the aim of adjectival law.
9. ...It is enough, on the facts of this case, for us to take the union as an abbreviation for the totality of workmen involved in the dispute, a
convenient label which, for reasons of expediency, converts a lengthy party array into a short and meaningful one, group representation through
unions being familiar in collective bargaining and later litigation. We do not expect the rigid insistence on each workman having to be a party eo
nomine. The whole body of workers, without their names being set out, is, in any case, sufficient, according to the Counsel for the respondents,
although strictly speaking, even there an amount of vagueness exists. For these reasons, we decline to frustrate this appeal by acceptance of a
subversive technicality. We regard this appeal as one by the workmen compendiously projected and impleaded through the union.
21. Secondly, NLC United Workers union for which allotment was made itself had come on record as R4 and are supporting the stand of the
petitioner Federation. Therefore, proper parties are before this Court. Even otherwise, it is the admission of the respondent NLC that in all the
notices sent by the Estate Officer, it had described the Union only as the General Secretary- AITUC. Having given a notice to the petitioner Union
they cannot wriggle out of the said description by citing that the premises was allotted only to R4 and not to the Federation. It is also immaterial
that so long as the Union is affiliated to AITUC they can also come and file the present writ petition. The petitioner Union has also shown by
documentary proof in the additional typed set the receipts issued by NLC for the amounts received from the petitioner towards rent of the said
premises. It is also the admission of the parties that notices issued for all discussions either by the NLC Management or by the authorities of the
Labour Department only to the Federation and not to individual unions. Therefore, the preliminary objection raised by the respondent NLC has to
be overruled.
22. In the present case, though the order has been passed by the RDO u/s 144 Cr.P.C., however by sealing the premises, the RDO had only
exercised power u/s 144 r/w Section 145 Cr.P.C. The dispute in the present case is between the petitioner Union and the faction led by P.
Kuppusamy (R3) regarding the control over the union building land. Therefore, if the possession is taken away from the petitioner Union in terms
of Section 145(b)(a), the party who was dispossessed from the building has to be put in possession. By exercising power under Chapter X of
Cr.P.C, properties cannot be dispossessed. That was why the Revenue Divisional Officer directed the Tahsildar, Panruti to remove the seal and
hand over the possession. Even before that could be done, the Estate Officer, without any legal authority had entered and locked the premises,
which is highly condemnable and not expected from a statutory authority. Any order passed by the RDO u/s 144 or under 144 is applicable to all.
When the seal has been put by the RDO, it cannot be broken or the premises can be trespassed even by the original owner to put their own lock
on the premises.
23. In effect, the lawful owner in the guise of the dispute between the two factions claiming tenancy rights had taken over the possession by a side
wind and on the exercise of power by an Executive Magistrate. Infact, it was shocking to note that a public authority like the Estate Officer and the
NLC can even disconnect power supply and electricity when the premises was under the seal and custody by the orders of the RDO. The NLC
Estate Officer cannot rely upon the so called letter sent by P. Kuppusamy for disconnecting electricity and power supply. Without any legal
authority to make such disconnection will amount to violating the orders passed by the RDO.
24. The provisions contained in Chapter X Cr.P.C. came to be interpreted by several decisions of the Supreme Court. It is necessary to refer to
one such decision hereunder: In the judgment relating to Kachrulal Bhagirath Agrawal and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, , the
Supreme Court dealt with Chapter X of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Speaking for the Bench, Arijit Pasayat, J., in paragraph 10 observed as
follows:
Para 10 : ""...The provisions of Chapter X of the Code should be so worked as not to become themselves a nuisance to the community at large.
Although every person is bound to so use his property that it may not work legal damage or harm to his neighbour, yet on the other hand, no one
has a right to interfere with the free and full enjoyment by such person of his property, except on clear and absolute proof that such use of it by him
is producing such legal damage or harm. Therefore, a lawful and necessary trade ought not to be interfered with unless it is proved to be injurious
to the health or physical comfort of the community. Proceedings u/s 133 are not intended to settle private disputes between different members of
the public. They are in fact intended to protect the public as a whole against inconvenience. A comparison between the provisions of Sections 133
and 144 of the Code shows that while the former is more specific, the latter is more general...
25. In the present case, even before the Tahsildar, Panruti could remove the seal and hand over possession to the petitioner, the respondent NLC
Estate Officer has acted high handedly in removing the seal on their own and had put the lock on the said premises. It is not expected from a public
authority to interfere with the factional fight between two sections of an Union. This Court is not prepared to believe the statement made by P.
Kuppusamy in his affidavit in support of M.P. No. 3 of 2009 that after the removal of the seal on 29.08.2009, the NLC put their own lock in the
premises. Such a stand was not taken by NLC in their counter affidavit. The revenue authorities have also not made any such statement. Therefore,
the petitioner Trade Union is entitled to get back the possession of the premises. The attempt made by the NLC in supporting the group led by P.
Kuppusamy to justify their indefensible action almost borders on an unfair labour practice prohibited under the V Schedule to the Industrial
Disputes Act. A commission of unfair labour practice has been prohibited by Section 25T of the Industrial Disputes Act and for which penalty has
also been prescribed u/s 25U.
26. Sensing that their stand cannot be justified before the Court, NLC has come forward to invoke power under the Public Premises Act and also
about the fact the petitioner Union had not availed appeal remedies under the Act. Even as per the admission of the Estate Officer, though the
earlier notices were sent only in the name of General Secretary AITUC (though according to them it was a mistake) but they were handed over to
P.Kuppusamy. It can be seen from the notice dated 06.03.2008 wherein it was signed by P. Kuppusamy in the capacity as General Secretary
(AITUC). Similarly, the notice dated 18.06.2009 was also issued in the name of Secretary (AITUC) and it was allegedly served on P.
Kuppusamy on 18.06.2009. The said notice claiming to have been issued u/s 5B(1) of the Act ought to have been served against the appropriate
parties. When the said P. Kuppusamy even to the knowledge of the respondent NLC was expelled from the Union and he was prosecuting a civil
suit before the Civil court without any success until this date, it cannot be said that a valid notice was served on the person concerned. Similarly,
the letter dated 16.06.2009 allegedly sent by the faction owing allegiance to P. Kuppusamy was also unauthorised as they were not the entitled to
represent either the AITUC or the NLC United Workers Union.
27. The contention that as against the notice issued u/s 5B(1), the petitioner will have to avail the remedy by way of an appeal u/s 9 of the Act also
cannot be accepted. It is no doubt true if a valid order is passed u/s 5B certainly an appeal will lie to a District Court. But in the present case, the
question is whether a valid order was passed by the Estate Officer has to be examined. Section 5B(1) reads as follows:-
5-B. Order of demolition of unauthorised construction - (1) Where the erection of any building or execution of any work has been commenced, or
is being carried on, or has been completed, on any public premises by any person in occupation of such public premises under an authority
(whether by way of grant or any other mode of transfer), and such erection of building or execution of work is in contravention of, or not
authorised by, such authority, then, the estate officer may, in addition to any other action that may be taken under this Act or in accordance with
the terms of the authority aforesaid, make an order, for reasons to be recorded therein, directing that such erection or work shall be demolished by
the person at whose instance the erection or work has been commenced, or is being carried on, or has been completed, within such period, as
may be specified in the order.
Provided that no order under this Sub-section shall be made unless the person concerned has been given, by means of a notice [of not less than
seven days'' served in the prescribed manner, a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why such order should not be made.
28. In order to show the importance of the procedural aspect of the Public Premises Act, 1971, it will be useful to refer to the decision of the
Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nusli Neville Wadia and Another, . The following passage found in paragraphs 40,41
and 57 from the said judgment may be extracted below:
40. For the said purpose, Sections 4 and 5 of the Act must be read together. Even the Rules which are validly framed must be read along with the
statutory provisions. Ordinarily although a tenant occupying the property belonging to a government may be somewhat in a worse position than a
tenant having protection under the Rent Control Act as has been held by a Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Standard Literature Co. (P)
Ltd. v. Union of India but with a view to interpret the provisions of the Act, we must take into consideration the decisions of this Court laying down
the concept of ''bona fide act'' and the ''fair action'' on the part of the owner as laid down in Dwarkadas Marfatia and Sons v. Board of Trustees of
the Port of Bombay and Ashoka Marketing Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank.
41. In Dwarkadas Marfatia, this Court clearly held that: (SCC p.303, para 17)
17. - the public authorities which enjoy this benefit without being hidebound by the requirements of the Rent Act must act for public benefit. Hence,
to that extent, that is liable to be gone into and can be the subject-matter of adjudication.
...
57. We, however, must not shut our eyes to the objects for which the Act was enacted. It provided for a speedy remedy. The Estate Officer is
expected to arrive at a decision as expeditiously as possible. The provisions of the CPC and the Evidence Act being not applicable, what is
necessary to be complied with is the principles of natural justice.
29. In so far as invocation of Section 5B(1) is concerned, it is only for directing an occupant to demolish unauthorised construction. As stated
already while the notice for demolishing unauthorised construction was issued in the name of the General Secretary AITUC, though as per the
Estate Officer''s counter affidavit it has to be served on the NLC United Workers Union, in the present case, it was served on P. Kuppusamy who
is no longer the member of the said union. First of all in the present case, there is no proper notice issued to the petitioner and served on the
petitioner in the manner known to law. On the contrary, the notices came to be issued on 26.06.2009 when the order of RDO dated 13.06.2009
was very much in force and since the building was sealed with effect from 13.06.2009, no one could have entered the building for either removal of
the so called unauthorised construction and therefore not only the notices was served in the manner known to law but also a direction which was
impossible to be performed was made by the Estate Officer. Secondly Section 5B only enables the removal of unauthorised construction in the
premises let out to any occupant but not deprive them of the entire premises on account of violations of conditions of such allotment. It is not the
case of the respondent Estate Officer that a notice was issued either under Sections 4 and 5 for ordering eviction of the petitioner Trade Union and
therefore, the impugned public notice put up by the Estate Officer that he had locked the premises and no person should trespass would really
amount to evicting the petitioner from the premises without due process and without invoking the material provisions under the Act. Therefore, the
impugned notice is clearly illegal and ultra vires of the provisions of the Public Premises Act, 1971.
30. In the light of the above, W.P. No. 18182 of 2009 is liable to be allowed. However, Mr. N.A.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for NLC and the
Estate Officer submitted that if the premises is restored to the petitioner, it will once again lead to law and order problem. This Court is surprised
that such contentions are made by the Management. If any person is dispossessed or attempt to dispossess them unlawfully, the police and revenue
authorities will take care of such a situation. Infact when the order u/s 144 was issued by RDO, he had directed the DSP, Neyveli to oversee the
compliance of his order. Similarly, if any breach of peace is sought to be made, the authorities will take care of such situation and the NLC cannot
meddle into a inter-union dispute in the name of either nuisance or complaint from the so called public.
31. As contended by the petitioner Union, Block No. 24 is a mixed zone where other than the petitioner Union, several other trade unions are
having offices. So long as the petitioner union had not violated any conditions of allotment, they cannot be removed from the premises allotted to it.
Further when the RDO had actually directed the Tahsildar, Panruti to break open the seal and hand over possession it only means the possession
should be handed over to the petitioner Union which was in possession of the said premises immediately before the prohibitory order was made.
The 4th respondent which is an affiliated union to which the original order of allotment was also made is supporting the case of the petitioner Union
and therefore, there is no difficulty for the authorities to hand over the possession to the petitioner Union.
32. In the light of the above, W.P. No. 18182 of 2009 stands allowed with the following directions:
a) The RDO, Cuddalore and the Tahsildar, Panruti is hereby directed to hand over the possession of the building D-13, Mahatma Gandhi Salai,
Block No. 24 to the petitioner Union within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order by breaking open the lock put up by the
Estate Officer.
b) The Estate Officer and the NLC Management are directed to restore power supply and electricity to the premises in question forthwith.
c) If any attempt made by the impleaded third respondent to create nuisance or disturbance, the police authorities are directed to take appropriate
action. Until the third respondent succeeds in his civil suit he cannot interfere with the affairs of the petitioner Union or trespass into the premises in
question.
d) Since there was an apprehension by the NLC Management that there will be law and order problem, the DSP, Neyveli is directed to offer
appropriate police protection and restore law and order.
33. In the result, W.P. No. 18182 of 2009 stands allowed with costs of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by NLC Ltd., (R1) to the Petitioner Union. W.P.
No. 12624 of 2009 stands dismissed as infructuous. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
