Judgment:
I.S. Israni, J.
1. Heard. It is submitted by Shri S.K.Jindal, learned Counsel that petitoner is working as Assistant Teacher and is in occupation of a premises belonging to Panchayat Samiti. It is submitted that another premises were allotted to her for occupation, but instead of that she occupied the disputed premises in 1985 and continues to live in the same. It is submitted that order for eviction dated 23.1.90 has been passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bundi under the provisions of Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act, 1964'). The learned Counsel contends that the notice Under Section 4 of the Act, 1964 is not in accordance with law as even though the petitioner is occupying the premises unauthorisely, the ground mentioned is that she should vacated as she has been transferred. It is also submitted that the S.D.O. who acted as Estate Officer had no authority to take the proceedings under the Act, 1964 because he is ex-officio member of the concerned Panchayat. It is also submitted that the order regarding charging three times rent from the petitioner for the disputed premises is also penal in nature and has not been passed in accordance with law. The learned Counsel has placed reliance on AIR 1958 SC 1376, in which it was held that no man shall be a judge in his own cause. So far as the notice Under Section 4 is concerned even though it is mentioned that petitoner is occupying the premises unauthorisely, it is also mentioned that the petitioner has been transferred which is an incorrect fact. However, the admitted position is that the petitioner is occupying the premises unathorisely since several years. Even though I do not find any force in the contention of the learned Counsel it is held to be it will result in coming to rescue of a person who has acted against the provisions of law far years together. This Court under its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 will come to rescue of only such persons who respect rule of law and conduct themselves accordingly. This Court shall not pass any order under its writ jurisdiction, which will perpetuate illegal acts. Admittedly the petitioner has been occupying this house since last 5 years unauthorisely and has not been vacated inspite of several notices and judicial orders till today. Therefore, powers of this Court shall not be invoked to act in voilation of law.
2. It is also contended that the S.D.O. could not have acted as Estate Officer since he is an ex-officio member of the Panchayat. Being an ex-officio member does not mean that he is judge his own cause as has been pointed out in AIR 1958 SC 1376. Merely because he is an ex-officio member of Panchayat by operation of law will not operate as a bar to restrain him from discharging his other statutory duties, which he is bound to perform. It was submitted by the learned Counsel that the rent of the disputed premises has been continuously deducted from the salary of the petitioner and nothing is due from her, so far as the rent of the disputed premises is concerned. If the rent till today has been deducted from the salary of the petitioner and nothing is now due from her, and she vacates the disputed premises within 30 days from the date of this order. She will not be liable to pay three times rent as ordered by learned Additional District Judge, Bundi in his order dated 23.1.90.
The writ petition is dismissed.