S. Abdul Nazeer, J.
1. In this case the petitioner has sought for an order directing the respondent to return all his belongings said to have been taken away by the respondent on 20.3.1999 from his house at Bangalore. He has sought for a further direction directing the respondent to deliver the said belongings to his present address or to his permanent address with an advance intimation to him to that effect.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under;
The petitioner had joined the respondent-Company in March 1980 as the Head of Personnel and Administration of Bangalore Complex. The respondent had transferred the petitioner from Bangalore to some other place. The transfer order was challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition before this Court. Thereafter, the petitioner was terminated from the post of Deputy General Manager on certain charges. The said order was also challenged by the petitioner before this Court. Both the writ petitions were allowed by the learned single Judge. The respondent has filed writ appeals challenging the orders of the learned single Judge. The division Bench of this Court has allowed the writ appeals. The matter is now pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioner was allotted a quarters No. A.4, Central Avenue, Dooravaninagar, Bangalore, (for short 'the premises') of the respondent-Company. After the termination of his service, the respondent-Company initiated proceedings against the petitioner for his eviction from the premises under the provisions of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1971, (for short the Act). The Estate Officer passed an order of eviction as per Section 5 of the Act on 8.1.1998. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed an appeal in MA No. 9/1998 on the file of the Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City. The Civil Court dismissed the appeal on 19.8.1998. Petitioner challenged the order of the Civil Court before this Court in WP No. 2872/1998. This Court dismissed the writ petition on 18.12.1998. However, three months time was granted to the petitioner to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises. The petitioner filed a writ appeal in WA No. 893/1999 before the Division Bench, which was also dismissed on 20.4.1999. Petitioner contends that he has challenged the order of the Division Bench before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that in the guise of evicting the petitioner and his family members pursuant to the order in WP No. 2872/1998, the respondent has taken away all his belongings from the premises under his occupation without authority of law. Therefore, he has filed this writ petition for the aforesaid reliefs.
4. Respondent-Company has filed a detailed counter. It is the case of the respondent that though this Court has confirmed the order of the Estate Officer, the petitioner did not vacate the premises even after the expiry of three months. Therefore, the Estate Officer in exercise of the powers under Section 5(2) of the Act, has evicted the petitioner from the premises. While executing the said order, a detailed mahazar was drawn regarding the movables found in the premises. At the time of taking possession of the premises, the Estate Officer has taken possession of the articles as per the mahazar dated 20.3.1999. It is further contended that though the petitioner was repeatedly requested to remove the articles/effects found in the premises, he has refused to take out the said articles. It is contended that though the members of his family were ready to shift the said articles, the petitioner did not allow them to do so. Thereafter, the petitioner started litigating for the said articles by initiating frivolous proceedings. He has filed a criminal complaint against the respondent and its officials in PCR No. 159/1999 by making false and frivolous contentions. The private complaint is still pending. In the meantime, the petitioner filed a Crl.P.No. 2644/1999 before this Court for transfer of the said complaint to this Court. In the said complaint, an order was passed directing the petitioner to collect his articles in the presence of jurisdictional Police. Accordingly, the respondent by its letter dated 1.4.2000 requested the petitioner to collect all the articles seized in the course of eviction proceedings and fixed the time as 5.5.2000 at 10.00 A.M. However, the petitioner by his letter dated 28.3.2000 tentatively fixed his schedule for taking inventory on 15th and 16th May 2000. Despite the above, the petitioner has failed to appear before the respondent and collect his articles. The respondent by the letter dated 11.5.2000 agreed to handover the articles on 16.5.2000. Since, the petitioner did not collect the articles, the Estate Officer gave a notice by publishing in 'Hindu' dated 8.11.2000 calling upon the petitioner to collect his articles within the time mentioned therein. A Copy of the paper publication is at Annexure-R.6. However, the petitioner has not taken back his articles. It is contended that the petitioner has to make arrangements to shift the articles and that there is no obligation on the part of the respondent to deliver the articles to the address given by the petitioner in the writ petition. It is contended that the petitioner is liable to pay demurrages for keeping the articles in question in the premises of the respondent from 20.3.1999 till date. It is further contended that the petitioner is at liberty to take delivery of the said articles at any time during the working hours of the respondent.
5. Heard the petitioner who is present in person and Sri. S.G. Hegde learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.
6. Petitioner contends that he was illegally evicted by the respondent from the premises, which was in his possession. He submits that the matter relating to his eviction is pending before the Apex Court It is contended that the respondent has illegally removed his belongings from the premises. It is further contended that Section 6 of the Act provides for disposal of property left on public premises by unauthorised occupants. The respondent has removed his belongings from the premises without compliance of Section 6(1) of the Act. It is argued that it was mandatory for the Estate Officer to issue fourteen days notice to the petitioner before removing his belongings. It is further argued that the mahazar at Annexure-R. 1 shows that respondent has taken away the articles found inside the premises at the time of taking possession of the premises. He has filed a private complaint against the respondent for illegally removing his belongings from the premises. He submits that the respondent should be directed to deliver his articles at his place of residence in exercise of the discretionary power of this Court.
7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent would contend that the petitioner has been filing case after case against the respondent for one reason or the other. He was lawfully evicted from the premises and he was asked to take back his articles. Since the petitioner did not take back his articles, the respondent has published a notice as per Annexure-R.6. He was also asked to lake his articles which is evident from Annexure-R.2. He submits that the petitioner can take back the articles, which are stored by the respondent in its premises. The respondent is not ready to deliver the articles to the petitioner at the address mentioned in the writ petition.
8. Having regard to the rival contentions of the parties, the question to be decided in this writ petition is whether the respondent has removed the articles belonging to the petitioner from the premises in accordance with law and whether the respondent should be directed to deliver the articles to the address furnished by the petitioner in the writ petition?
9. The undisputed facts are that an eviction order was passed by the Estate Officer on 8.1.1998 in terms of Section 5 of the Act directing eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question. The appeal filed by him IN MA No. 9/1998 challenging the said order was dismissed by the Civil Court. The petitioner had challenged the said order before this Court in WP No. 2872/1998. The writ petition was dismissed on 18.12.1998 granting three months tune to the petitioner to vacate and handover vacant possession of the premises. The relevant portion of the order is as under,
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is given three months time to vacate and handover vacant possession of the quarters of the respondent-Company.
The writ appeal filed by the petitioner in WA No. 893/1999 challenging the above order was also dismissed on 24.9.1999. The petitioner contends that he has challenged the said order before the Apex Court. The time granted by the learned Single Judge in WP No. 2872/1998 expired on 18.3.1999. Admittedly the respondent has taken possession of the premises on 20.3.1999. A mahazar was drawn at the time of taking possession of the premises as per Annexure-R.1. The mahazar indicates that the petitioner has not agreed to vacate the premises. Therefore, he was evicted from the premises. It is further stated in the mahazar that the articles found inside the premises would be taken out in the presence of two witnesses. The relevant portion of the mahazar is as under;
Whether agreed to : Vacate/not agreed to VacateNot agreed
Not agreed to vacate:
Explained the procedure for evicting since not Volunteered to vacate as below:
All the articles found inside the Premiseswould be taken out of the said premises through the front door in thepresence of following two witnesses. The name would he listed and the lint wouldbe signed by the Eviction Inspector and the two witnesses. The listedarticles would be dealt further as provided in the Public Premises (Evictionof Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
10. The petitioner has lodged a private complaint on 22.3.1999 before the Krishnarajapuram Police Station wherein he has clearly stated that the respondent has moved most of his belongings outside the premises and locked the premises. In the complaint it is stated as under;
2. When I tried to go out of the premises to telephone for police help, they physically prevented me from going out of the gate and forcibly confined me within the premises till about 1.00 p.m. by which time they had ransacked the house and moved most of our belonging outside the premises to the roadside. At 1.00 p.m. they locked the house preventing me from entering the house and pushed me out of the premises. After locking the gate, they posted their goons to prevent me from going inside the premises. Members of my family too, were similarly pushed out of the premises.
3. xxxxx
4. On my return from the police station a little after 1.30 p.m. to where our belonging were dumped, I found the goons hired by ITI Limited, with the help of ITI employees, loading our belongings to one of the company lorries. They thus, carried all our belongings including the one I was sitting on, physically lifting me out of it, by around 4.00 p.m. leaving me and members of my family homeless and robbed of most of out belongings.
11. The petitioner has also filed a private complaint in PCR No. 159/1999 under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 20.1.2001 registered the case against the accused persons therein. The letter issued to the petitioner at Annexure-R.2 dated 1.4.2000 suggests the petitioner to collect his articles on 5.5.2000 at 10.00 A.M. at ITI Limited, Doorvaninagar, III Township, Bangalore. To the similar effect is the letter at Annexure-R.5.
12. The petitioner submits that the premises in question has already been allotted to some other employee of the respondent which is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the respondent. It is also not in dispute that the respondent has kept the articles in one of its premises. Thus, it is clear that the belongings of the petitioner were removed from the premises on 20.3.1999 itself. The question for consideration is whether the respondent has removed the said articles in accordance with law?
13. The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 provides for eviction of occupants from the public premises and for certain incidental matters. Section 4 of the Act provides for issue of notice to show cause against the order of eviction. Section 5 of the Act provides for eviction of unauthorised occupants which is as under;
5. Eviction of unauthorised occupants.-(1) If, after considering the cause, if any, shown by any person in pursuance of a notice under Section 4 and (any evidence produced by him in support of the same and after personal hearing, if any, given under Clause (b) of subjection (2) of Section 4), the estate officer is satisfied that the public premises are in unauthorised occupation, the estate officer may make an order of eviction, for reasons to be recorded therein, directing that the public premises shall be vacated, on such date as may be specified in the order, by all persons who may be in occupation thereof or any part thereof, and cause a copy of the order to be affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises.
(2) If any person refuses or fails to comply with the order of eviction (on or before the date specified in the said order or within fifteen days of the date of its publication under Sub-section (1), whichever is later), the estate officer or any other officer duly authorised by the estate officer in this behalf (may after the date so specified or after the expiry of the period aforesaid, whichever is later, evict that person) from, and take possession of the public premises any may, for that purpose, use such force as may be necessary.
14. Section 6 of the Act provides for disposal of the property left on public premises by unauthorised occupants. The said provision is as under;
6. Disposed of property left on public premises by unauthorised occupants.
(1) Where any persons have been evicted from any public premises under Section 5 (or where any building or other work has been demolished under Section 5-B), the estate officer may, after giving fourteen days' notice to the persons from whom possession of the public premises has been taken and after publishing the notice in at least one newspaper having conciliation in the locality, remove or cause to be removed or dispose of by public auction any property remaining on such premises.
15. Rule 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Rules, 1971, deals with the manner of taking possession of the public premises. It is as under:
Manner of taking possession of public premises - (1) If any obstruction is offered, or is in the opinion of the estate officer likely to be offered:
(a) to the taking possession of any public premises: or
(b) to the sealing of erection or work or of the public premises,
under the said Act, the estate officer or any other officer duly authorised by him in this behalf may obtain necessary police assistance:
Provided that no sealing or taking possession of the unauthorised construction shall be made before sunrise or after sunset.
(2) Where any public premises of which possession is to be taken under the Act is found locked, the estate officer or any other officer duly authorised by him in this behalf may either seal the premises or in the presence of two witnesses break open the locks or open or cause to be opened any door, gate or other barrier and enter the premises;
Provided that,-
(1) no entry shall be made into, or possession taken of, a public premises before sunrise or after sunset;
(2) where any public premises is forced pen, an inventory of the articles found in the premises shall be taken in the presence of two witnesses.
16. It is clear from the aforesaid provisions that the procedure prescribed for taking possession of the premises is entirely different from the disposal of the property left on the public premises by unauthorised occupants. As noticed above, Sub-section (2) of Section 5 states that where any person refuses or fails to comply with the order of eviction on or before the date specified in the said order or within fifteen days of the date of its publication under Sub-section (1) whichever is later, the estate officer or any other officer duly authorised by the estate officer in this behalf may after the date so specified or after the expiry of the period aforesaid, whichever is later, evict that person, from, and take possession of the public premises and may, for that purpose, use such force as may be necessary. Proviso (2) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 states that where any public premises is forced open, an inventory of articles found in the premises shall be taken in the presence of two witnesses. Separate procedure is prescribed for disposal of the property left on the public premises under Section 6 of the Act. Section 6(1) states that where any persons have been evicted from any public premises under Section 5, the estate officer after giving fourteen days' notice to the persons from whom possession of public premises has been taken and after publishing the notice in at least one newspaper having circulation in the locality, remove or cause to be removed or dispose of by public auction any property remaining on such premises. In other words, the estate officer after taking possession of the premises under Section 5 of the Act has to give fourteen days' notice to the persons from whom possession of the public premises has been taken and also publish the notice in at least one newspaper having circulation in the locality before removing or cause to be removed or disposal by public auction any of the property remaining on such premises. Therefore, even for removal of any property remaining in the public premises, the estate officer has to first give fourteen days notice to the person from whom the possession of the public premises has been taken and a notice to that effect should also be published in atleast one news paper having circulation in the locality. The only exception to this rule is in respect of any property, which is subject to speedy and natural decay as provided in Sub-section (1-B) of Section 6 of the Act. It is not sufficient for the estate officer to make an inventory of the articles found in the premises in the presence of two witnesses as provided in Rule 7 of the Rules and remove them.
17. No material has been produced to show that the petitioner has agreed to remove the articles from the place where it has been stored by the respondent. The very fact that the respondent has drawn a mahazar of articles found in the premises at the time of taking possession as per proviso (2) of Rule 7(2) shows that the respondent has taken possession of the premises forcibly. Therefore, the respondent should have removed the articles after following the procedure prescribed in Section 6(1) of the Act. In the letter at Annexure-R.4 he has only agreed to take inventory of his belongings in the presence of an officer of Krishnarajapuram Police Station. This is much later to the date of taking possession of the premises. The notification at Annexure-R.6 is to notify that the belongings of the petitioner will be auctioned. As stated above, even for removal of the articles, fourteen days' notice and publication of the notice in one of the newspapers having circulation in the locality is necessary. Infact, Annexure-R.6 has been issued on 8.11.2000, after removal of the articles from the premises in question. It is thus clear that the respondent has removed the household articles belonging to the petitioner from the premises contrary to law.
18. Now the question is whether this Court can direct the respondent to deliver the household articles belonging to the petitioner to the place where he is residing now. It is settled that Article 226 of the Constitution grants extra-ordinary remedy, which is essentially discretionary. It is perfectly open for the Court exercising this flexible power to pass such orders as public interest dictates and equity projects. Articles 226 of the Constitution of India being couched in comprehensive phraseology, ex-facie it confers wide powers on the High Court to reach injustice whenever it is found.
19. In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India : (1996)ILLJ1231SC , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that mere fact that there is no provision parallel to Article fourteen relating to the High Courts can be no ground to think that they have not to do complete justice and if moulding of relief would do complete justice between the parties the same cannot be ordered. Power to do complete justice inheres in every Court not to speak of a Court of plenary jurisdiction like a High Court. In Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal : (2002)ILLJ465SC , the Apex Court has held that the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution is to advance justice and not to thwart it. The very purpose of such constitutional powers being conferred on the High Court is that no man should be subjected to injustice by violating the law. It has been held thus:
Time and again this Court has reminded that the power conferred on the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is to advance Justice and not to thwart it. The very purpose of such constitutional powers being conferred on the High Courts is that no man should be subjected to injustice by violating the law. The look out of the High Court is, therefore, not merely to pick out any error of law through an academic angle but to see whether injustice has resulted on account of any erroneous interpretation of law. If justice became the by-product of an erroneous view of law the High Court is not expected to erase such justice in the name of correcting the error of law.
20. In the present case, the respondent has removed the household articles belonging to the petitioner from the premises on 20.3.1999 contrary to law. In the letter at Annexure-R.2 dated 1.4.2000, the estate officer has stated that the articles are in the custody of the company consequent upon his eviction from the premises in question. In Annexure-R.4 dated 28.3.2000, the petitioner has only agreed to participate in taking the inventory of his belongings. The respondent has neither issued a statutory notice to the petitioner nor has it published any notice in the newspaper according to law. The only request of the petitioner is to deliver his belongings to his present: address or to his permanent address, which is just and reasonable. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the respondent has to deliver the articles belonging to the petitioner to the address mentioned in the writ petition.
21. In the result, I pass the following order;
i) It is hereby declared that the removal of the articles belonging to the petitioner from the premises in question by the respondent is contrary to Section 6(1) of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
ii) I direct the respondent to deliver the belongings of the petitioner to the address furnished in the writ petition with an advance intimation to the petitioner to that effect within eight (8) weeks from today.
Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.