9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to order for vacation of public premises under Defence of India Rules - Authority of the officer issuing the order - Compliance with rules of business - Validity of order under Rule 155 - Applicability of Public Premises Act - Authority of Central Government to make eviction orders. Analysis: The case involved an appeal challenging an order by a Deputy Secretary directing vacation of a building under Defence of India Rules. The order was based on the property being public premises required for defense purposes. The appellants argued the officer lacked authority under the Rules of Business to issue such an order. The High Court found the officer's order lacked the necessary authority of the Central Government, rendering it illegal and void. The Deputy Secretary's order was made under Rule 155 of the Defence of India Rules, allowing eviction of unauthorized occupants from public premises. The rule required the Central Government's opinion and satisfaction regarding unauthorized occupation, with strict compliance necessary. The officer's lack of authority to act on behalf of the Central Government rendered the order ineffective and void, as only the Central Government or its authorized officer could issue such directives. The High Court examined the title of the appellants and the property's status as public premises under the Public Premises Act. The appellants argued that determination should follow the Act's procedures rather than being supplanted by the Defence of India Rules. The Deputy Secretary's lack of authority to exercise Central Government powers made the order invalid, separate from proceedings under the Public Premises Act. The Court held that the lack of authority of the Deputy Secretary to issue the order rendered it illegal and void. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order. Costs were awarded to the appellants. The Court clarified that the High Court's findings on various points should not impact future proceedings between the parties. In conclusion, the judgment focused on the lack of authority of the Deputy Secretary to issue the eviction order under Rule 155, emphasizing the need for strict compliance with legal requirements and the proper exercise of powers by the Central Government or its authorized officers in such matters.
|
