- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
S.D Bandi v. Divisional Traffic Officer, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The appeal (by special leave) challenged an impugned order in Writ Appeal No. 324 of 2002 of the Karnataka High Court (Division Bench), which allowed the respondents' writ appeal and restored an eviction order directing the appellant’s eviction from a government quarter.
The appellant was a Driver with the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC), Mysore Division. By order dated 31-5-1992, he was transferred to Mangalore Division and was relieved from Mysore Division on 12-6-1997. He challenged the transfer before the Industrial Tribunal, Mysore (Reference No. 21 of 1997). While he joined at Mangalore, he did not vacate the government quarter.
On 19-7-1999, the competent officer under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 passed an eviction order (KPP No. 3 of 1998). The appellant’s appeal to the District Judge was dismissed, confirming eviction. He then filed WP No. 41762 of 2001 before the Karnataka High Court, which was allowed on 10-12-2001, resulting in dismissal of the eviction petition.
Meanwhile, on 3-7-2000, the Industrial Tribunal set aside the transfer and directed restoration to Mysore. KSRTC challenged that award in Writ Petition No. 3249 of 2001, where rule nisi was issued and operation of the Tribunal’s award was stayed; that stay order was stated to still be operative.
KSRTC filed a writ appeal against the Single Judge’s order dismissing the eviction petition; the Division Bench allowed the writ appeal and restored the original eviction order (as affirmed by the appellate authority). Though time was granted by the High Court (based on the appellant’s undertaking) to vacate by 30-4-2004, the appellant filed the present appeal by special leave.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the appellant had any right to continue occupying the government quarter when the Industrial Tribunal’s order setting aside his transfer had been stayed by the High Court and the stay was still operative.
- Whether the High Court Division Bench was justified in restoring the eviction order passed under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974, as affirmed by the appellate authority.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court reasoned from the procedural posture and undisputed facts that the High Court had stayed the operation of the Industrial Tribunal’s order (dated 3-7-2000) setting aside the transfer, and that this stay continued to operate. On that basis, the Court concluded that the appellant had “no right at all” to continue in occupation of the quarter even for a single day.
The Court further observed that unauthorised occupation of government quarters by government servants was increasing and needed to be curbed through firm action. On this reasoning, it characterised the appeal as frivolous and fit to be dismissed.
To ensure enforcement, the Court issued operational directions: it directed the Divisional Controller/Competent Officer, KSRTC, Mysore Division (Respondent 3) to evict the appellant within one week; required that police assistance be provided forthwith by the Superintendent of Police concerned if needed; directed the Registry to communicate the order by fax; required a compliance report by fax within ten days; and directed removal of any other person found in possession within the same timeframe.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED: The appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
The direct consequence was immediate enforcement of eviction: Respondent 3 was ordered to evict the appellant from the quarter within one week, with police assistance mandated if required, and with compliance reporting to the Court. The order also authorised eviction of any other occupant found in possession within the same period. The opinion does not indicate that any new legal precedent was set beyond these case-specific directions.
Order
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Leave granted. This appeal has been filed against the impugned order Writ Appeal No. 324 of 2002 passed by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, whereby the writ appeal filed by the respondents has been allowed and the order of eviction of the appellant from the government quarter has been passed.
3. The appellant, who was working as a Driver in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (for short “the Corporation”), Mysore Division at Mysore, was transferred to Mangalore Division by an order dated 31-5-1992 and for joining the place of transfer, he was relieved from the duty of Mysore Division on 12-6-1997. The appellant challenged the order of transfer by filing a complaint giving rise to Reference No. 21 of 1997 before the Industrial Tribunal, Mysore. Though, at the same time he did join the place of posting at Mangalore but he did not vacate the quarter.
4. On 19-7-1999 the competent officer under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974, passed an order of eviction against the appellant in KPP No. 3 of 1998. Against the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the District Judge, which was dismissed and the order of eviction was confirmed. Against the said order, the appellant preferred a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court, bearing WP No. 41762 of 2001, which was allowed on 10-12-2001 WP No. 41762 of 2001 and the eviction petition was dismissed. In the meantime, on 3-7-2000 the Industrial Tribunal set aside the order of transfer and ordered the appellant to be restored to his original place of work at Mysore. Against the said order, the Corporation filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No. 3249 of 2001, in which rule nisi was issued and operation of the award of the Industrial Tribunal was stayed. The said order undisputedly is still operative.
5. The Corporation thereafter preferred writ appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge whereby eviction petition was dismissed, which appeal has been allowed by the impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court and thereby the order of eviction passed by the original authority as affirmed by the appellate authority has been restored. The appellant, as undertaken by him, was granted time by the High Court to vacate the quarter by 30-4-2004. Challenging the said order, the present appeal has been filed by special leave.
6. From the facts enumerated above, it will be plain that as the operation of the order of the Tribunal was stayed by the High Court on 3-7-2000 and the said order is still operating, the appellant has no right at all to continue in the quarter in question even for a day. Such tendency to continue to occupy the government quarter unauthorisedly is galloping fast amongst the government servants, which must be curbed by suitably and firmly dealing with the matter. In our view, this appeal is frivolous one and the same is fit to be dismissed. Now, it is high time that a direction is given to the Divisional Controller/Competent Officer, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Mysore Division, Respondent 3, to at once evict the appellant from the quarter. Accordingly, he is directed to see that the appellant is evicted within one week from today. If he requires police force for this purpose, the same shall be provided forthwith to him by the Superintendent of Police concerned so that this order is given effect to within the time aforementioned. This order shall be communicated to the competent authority by the Registry of this Court through fax as well and a compliance report must also be sent to the Registry of this Court by the authority concerned through fax as well so as to reach here within ten days from today. If the competent authority finds that any other person is in possession of the quarter in question, he shall be thrown out within the same time.
7. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
Alert