R.A. Mehta, J.
1. This is a gross case wherein the petitioner has continued possession of a stall in Baroda Central Bus Station under the interim order of the Court on a specious plea that the Corporation should give the stall by inviting tenders. The petitioner has continued for almost 13 years at the same old licence fee of Rs. 590/- without any competition, any tender and to the utter detriment of the public interest and interest of the Corporation.
2. The petitioner was given the stall in the year 1970 and he continued for 11 years and the licence fee was revised from time to time and lastly, it was Rs. 590/- per month. This yearly renewal at the expiry of 11 years, as per the policy of the Corporation, was not to be renewed beyond 11 years and it was to be allotted afresh. At that stage, the petitioner filed this Special Civil Application which was admitted and interim relief was granted in terms of para 11(d) which reads as follows:
Be pleased to grant interim injunction restraining the respondent No. 2, his servants and agents, from implementing the order Annexure 'B' further directing them not to evict the petitioner from his stall situated in the S.T. Depot at Baroda till this Special Civil Application is finally heard and decided by this Hon'ble High Court.
In view of the aforesaid interim order, the petitioner continues to occupy the stall at the same old licence fee without any upward revision which takes place in case of every licence. The petitioner has continued for 11 years and thereafter for a further period of 13 years under the interim order.
3. The only contention raised by the petitioner is that the respondent -Corporation wanted to give the stall to a co-operative society and to exclude the persons like the petitioner from competition. Whether fresh allotment shall be done by inviting tenders from persons or from cooperative societies only is a question which is left to be decided by the Corporation. In any case, the petitioner cannot have any claim to continue to occupy the stall on the ground that the fresh allotment has to be made after inviting public tenders only. The petitioner's petition and the interim order proceed on a thoroughly illegal baseless assumption that the petitioner would be the highest bidder and would be allowed to occupy the stall. The petitioner has continued to occupy the stall at the licence fee of only Rs. 590/- per month. Even on the plea of the petitioner that no one should be allowed to occupy the stall without inviting public tender, the petitioner must vacate the stall because he is continuing without any such tender and without any competition. Therefore, as far as the petitioner's continuance is concerned, it is thoroughly and absolutely illegal and without any right to be there. By obtaining such order, the petitioner has illegally and arbitrarily excluded all other persons from competing for the same and even restrained the Corporation from putting it to the best use in public interest and getting the maximum revenue out of the same.
4. The petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramanna v. International Airport Authority, AIR 1979 SC 1628. This judgment, instead of helping the petitioner, directly goes against him because the petitioner is in continuous occupation directly contrary to the observations of the Supreme Court. The petitioner was bound to vacate after expiry of 11 years period and thereafter to compete if eligible. In the present case, without any such competition, he has illegally continued. Even if there was any justification regarding the mode of fresh allotment or licence, there was no justification for continuing the petitioner in occupation.
5. There is no merit whatsoever in any of the contentions of the petitioner. Therefore, the petition has to be dismissed.
6. The petitioner has continued under the interim orders of the Court for 13 long years and now he must be directed to vacate forthwith. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Corporation can take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law for evicting by resorting to the Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act and it is also stated that some proceeding was initiated.
7. In view of the interim order of the Court, eviction could not take place for long 13 years and the petitioner has continued to be in occupation by virtue of the interim order. When the petitioner was under protection from the Court, the Court has to see that the petitioner forthwith vacates the premises of which he is in unauthorised occupation because his licence had expired and the interim relief is vacated. The Court need not and should not ask the Corporation to resort to the proceedings of eviction under the Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act and delay the eviction for more number of years. The petitioner who has obtained protection from the Court for long 13 years must now comply with the Court direction to vacate forthwith.
8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged with costs. Interim relief is vacated and the petitioner is directed to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the stall to the respondent-Corporation latest by 1-2-1994.
9. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioner may be given six weeks time to approach the higher forum and also to vacate the premises. The petitioner is entitled to have his remedy in accordance with law and, therefore, the request for time for six weeks is reasonable and that deserves to be granted. However, it is on condition that he files an undertaking in this Court latest by 1-2-1994 to the effect that if he fails to obtain any stay against this judgment and order, he will vacate and hand over possession of the stall to the respondent-Corporation without any hindrance latest by 15-3-1994. If he files such an undertaking, time to vacate is granted till 15-3-1994. If he does not file such undertaking by 1-2-1994 and does not give copy thereof to the Learned Counsel for the other side, the time to vacate is not granted beyond 1-2-1994 and the petitioner must comply with these directions and hand over peaceful and vacant possession by 2-2-1994. Breach of this order would be wilful disobedience of the order of the High Court and logical consequences will follow.