@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
A.P. Lavande, J.@mdashHeard Mr. Nadkarni, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lawande, learned Counsel for the respondent. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 17th September, 2009 passed by the District Judge, South Goa, Margao in Regular Civil Appeal No.79/2009 allowing the appeal against the judgment and order dated 1st April, 2009 passed by the Estate Officer on the ground that he was not appointed as an Estate Officer by the Central Government in terms of Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (''the Act'' for short).
2. Shri Gopal Raju claiming himself to be the Estate Officer issued a notice u/s 4 of the Act dated 24th September, 2008 to the respondent to show cause as to why they should not be evicted from the premises. After the respondent showed cause, Mr. Gopal Raju by judgment and order dated 1st April, 2009 directed demolition of the unauthorised structure within 15 days from the date of publication of the order. The said order was challenged by the respondent by filing Regular Civil Appeal No. 79/2009 which was allowed by the District Court, South Goa, Margao by the impugned judgment dated 17th September, 2009. The appeal was allowed on the ground that Shri Gopal Raju, Senior Regional Engineer was not appointed as an Estate Officer u/s 3 of the Act.
3. During the course of the hearing, Mr. Nadkarni, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner sought leave to withdraw the notice dated 24th September, 2008 issued by Shri Gopal Raju and submitted that the petitioner be permitted to withdraw the notice and consequently, the judgments and orders passed by the Estate Officer as well as by the District Court be set aside and liberty be granted to the petitioner to issue fresh notice to the respondent under the Act. Learned Counsel further submitted that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent, if the prayer sought for by the petitioner is granted.
4. Mr. Lawande, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent opposed the prayer and submitted that the petition filed on behalf of the Konkan Rail-way Corporation by Shri Raju Patgar, Senior Rail-way Engineer is not maintainable in as much as he had no authority to file the present petition. He also further submitted that the averments made in the petition have not been properly verified as required under the law. He therefore, submitted that the prayer made by the petitioner be rejected. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance upon the following judgments:
(i)
(ii)
(iii) Unreported judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 24 th June, 2010 in W.P. No.48/2009.
5. In rejoinder, Mr. Nadkarni, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the objection taken is highly technical and the interest of the Corporation should not suffer on a technicality. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union Bank of India Vs. Naresh Kumar Singh and others.
6. Having considered the rival submissions and having perused the record and the judgments relied upon by both the sides, I am of the considered opinion that the prayer sought for by the petitioner deserves to be allowed. Although the petition was initially filed by Shri Raju Patgar, Senior Railway Engineer of Konkan Rail-way Corporation, the petitioner has placed on record the document dated 20th September, 2010 signed by Shri Bhanu Prakash Tayal, Managing Director of Konkan Rail-way Corporation Ltd. ratifying the acts done by Shri Raju Patgar. There is absolutely no reason not to accept the ratification. In any case, having regard to the prayer made by the petitioner and having regard to the impugned orders passed, in my opinion, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent, if the prayer sought for by the petitioner is granted. In so far as defective verification of the petition is concerned, the same could not have been relevant if the matter was decided on merits.
7. I do not deem it necessary to make threadbare reference to the authorities cited by both the sides.
8. In view of the above, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the notice dated 24th September, 2008. Consequently, the judgment and order passed by the Estate Officer dated 1st April, 2009 and judgment and order dated 17th September, 2009 passed by the District Judge, South Goa, Margao in Regular Civil Appeal No.79/2009 are quashed and set aside. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to issue fresh notice to the respondents under the Act in accordance with law.
The petition stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
