http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RAMESH KUMAR SINGH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT22/11/1995

BENCH: PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J) BENCH: PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J) ANAND, A.S. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR  691            1996 SCC  (1) 327  JT 1995 (8)   331        1995 SCALE  (6)625

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T PARIPOORNAN, J.      Leave granted. 2.   This  is   a  typical   case  where  the  extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction  vested in  the High  Court under Article 226  of the  Constitution of  India  was  improperly invoked,  and   High  Court  was  pleased  to  exercise  its jurisdiction resulting in an abuse of process. 3.   The appellant  is the  Executive Engineer,  Bihar State Hosuing Board  and represents  the said ’Board’ (hereinafter referred to  as "Board"). The respondents to this appeal are (1)  Sri   Ramesh  Kumar   Singh  (Petitioner  in  the  Writ Petition),  (2)   State   of   Bihar,   (3)   Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Saraikella,  District  Singhbhum(the  ’competent authority’) and  (4) Sri  S.N. Pandey,  Adityapur,  District Singhbhum (east). 4.   The first  respondent assailed  the show-cause notice - Annexure Ext.  P-4-dated 16.12.1992 issued to him by the 3rd respondent herein  under  Section  59  of  the  Bihar  State Housing Board  Act, 1982  in CWJC  No. 82/93 - High Court of Patna. By  judgment dated  10.2.1993 a  Divison Bench of the High Court quashed Annexure Ext. P-4, show cause notice, and also the  Eviction proceedings  No. 6/92  pending before the 3rd respondent.  The Board,  party-respondent  in  the  writ petitio,  has   filed  this  appeal  against  the  aforesaid judgment dated 10.2.1993. 5.   The broad facts relevant for the disposal of the appeal are in  a narrow  compass. The  appellant-Board has allotted quarter No.  M-11/(Old) Adityapur,  Near Jamshedpur,  to the 4th respondent  on hire-purchase basis. Under the provisions fo the  Bihar State  Housing Board  Act, 1982  and the BIhar State Housing  Board (Management  and  Disposal  of  Housing Estates)  Regulations   of  1983,   detailed  procedure  for allotment, payment  of  hire  purchase  amount,  vesting  of ownership on  payment of  the last  instalment by the hirer,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

procedure for  summary eviction  of unauthorised occupation, etc. are  provided. The  hirer is a tenant of the Board till the last  instalment is  paid whereafter  the  ownership  is transferred  to   the  hirer  by  executing  an  appropriate conveyance. on  this basis  the 4th  respodent, hirer,  is a tenat of  the Board.  Section 58  of  the  act  states  that provisions of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) control Act  are inapplicable  to the  tenacy created by the Board. Section  59 of  the Bihar State created by the Board. Section 59  of the Bihar State Housing Board Act enables the Board to evict persons in occupation in cases of sub-tenancy or any  other unauthorised occupation, by application to the ’competent authority’.  By notification No. 3196/Patna dated 22.11.1973 (Annexure  Ext. P-1),  the Government f Bihar, in exercise of  powers conferred  on it by Section 2(10) of the Bihar State  Housing Board  Ordinance,  had  authorised  all civilian Sub-Divisional Officers and Magistrates, just below the rank  of S.D.D.’s,  as  competent  authorities  for  the purposes of  the Act.  The 3rd  respondent is  the competent authrity within  whose jurisdiction  the  instant  building- quarter  No.   M/11(Old)  Adityapur,   Near  Jamshedpur   is stituate. 6.   The 4th  respondent, the  allottee of  the quarter  No. M11/(Old), Adiyapur,  Near jamshedpur, complained to the 3rd respondent by  communication dated 20.10.1992 (annexure Ext. P-2) that  he has  been allotted  the said  abuilding by the Board, and while he was residing with his fmaily in the siad building, the 1st respondent has forcibly and unauthorisedly occupies the first floor of the building. The 3rd respondent forwarded the  aforesaid communication to the appellant. The appellant by Annexure Ext. P-3 dated 15.12.1992 informed the 3rd respondent,  S.D.O.  that  house  No.  MIG  M/11  (Old), Adityapur,  Near  Jamshedpur  stands  allotted  to  the  4th respondent and  the application of the 4th respondent, which is self-explantory,  praying for  eviction  of  the  portion unauthorisedly occupied  by the  1st respondent, is referred for  necessary   action.  In   this  back-ground,  ’the  3rd respondent issued  Annexure Ext. P-4 notice dated 16.12.1992 to the 1st respondent which is to the follwing effect :          "UNDER SECTION OF BIHAR HOUSING BOARD ACT          -----------------------------------------                      SHOW CAUSE NOTICE]                      ------------------      To,      Shri R.K. Singh,      Contractor,      M-11, Adityapur,      JAMSHEDPUR.           It appears from the petition of the Executive      Engineer, Bihar  State Housing  Board  (Adityapur)      Jamshedpur   that    you   are    illegally    and      unauthorisedly living  in HOuse  NO. M-11  Old  of      Housing Board situated at Adityapur Housing Board.           You are  hereby directed  through this notice      that to  explain in  person or through an Advocate      on  28.12.1992   at  10   A.M.  in  the  court  of      undersigned that  why not  an order of eviction of      the house in question by passed.                                          Sd/-                              Sub-Divisional Magistrate,                                       Saraikella                                       16.12.1992"                                     (emphasis supplied) 7.   It is  seen that  the 1st respondent instead of shwoing cause against Annexure Ext. P-4, straightaway approached the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

High court  by filing  CEJC NO. 82/93 and assailedl Annexure Ext. P-4.  According to  him, 4th respondent is the owner of the building  having purchased the same from the Board, that he is  a tenant of the first floor under the 4th respondent, that  the   3rd  respondent   is  incompetent   to  initiate proceedings for eviction under the Bihar State Housing Board Act, and  that only  proceedings under  the Bihar  Buildings (Lease, Rent  & Eviction) Control Act will lie for eviction. So, he  prayed for  quashing Annexure  Ext.  P-4  show-cause ntocie and the eviction proceedings. 8.   The High Court heard the parties and took the view that the 1st  respondent is not a tenant of the Board, and so the Board will  have no  jurisdiction  to  initiate  proceedings either on  its own  motion or  at the  instance of  the  4th respondent and  in this  view, the proceedings, initiated as per  Annexure   Ext.  P-4,   are  unjustified   and  without jurisdiction. The  High Court opined that the 4th respondent may seek  appropriate remedy  by bringing  a suit  under  he Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act. In the result, Anexure  Ext. P-4  and also the eviction proceedings NO. 6/92  were quashed. It is from the aforesaid judgment of the High  Court dated  10.2.1993, the  Board has  come up on appeal by special leave. 9.   We heard  counsel. It is common groudn that Quarter No. M/11 (Old)  Adityapur, Near  Jamshedpur, belongs  to  Board. According to  the Board  and the  4th respondent  the  hire- purchase transaction  is still  in force, and the ownsership of the  building has not been finally transferred to the 4th respondent. The  1st  respondent  would  say  that  the  4th respondent is  the owner  having purchased the building from the Board.  The ’basic’  or  fundamental  fact  is  thus  in dispute. The  3rd  respondent  is  the  competent  authority ntofied by  the  State  Government  under  the  BIhar  State Housing Board  Act, 1982 to initiate summary proceedings for eviction against the sub-letting, unauthorised occupation by any person,  of the  premises, etc.  belonging to the Board. Annexure Ext.  P-4, notice,  is the one so issued by the 3rd respondent. The  appellant and the 4th respondent compalined about the  forcible or  unauthorised occupation by the first respondent of  the premises  belonging to the Board. The 3rd respondent was  competent to  initiate the proceedings under the Act  if the  building still belongs to the Board and the ownersip has  not vested  in the  4th respondent. It may be, that this basic fact is denied by the 1st respondent when he states that the 4th respondent is the owner having purchased the building  from the  Board and  that he is a tenant under the 4th  respondent. The  baisc facts, on the basis of which the jurisdiciton  of the 3rd respondent to initiate/continue the proceedings, require investigation and adjudication. If, as pleaded by te appellant and the 4th respondent, the Board is the  owner and  the 4th respodent is the hirer, it cannot admit of  any doubt that the 3rd respondent has jurisdiction to initiate  the proceedings  as per  Annexure Ext.  P-4. If that basic  fact is  denied by  the 1st respondent, that may require investigation  of disputed facts and adjudication by the ’competent  authority’ -  the  3rd  respondent.  Without showing cause  against Annexure  Ext. P-4,  notice, the  1st respondent straightaway  filed the Writ Petition in the High Court and  assailed  Annexure  Ext.  P-4  and  the  eviction proceedngs. The  averments  in  thsi  regard,  contained  in paragraph 13(h)  of the  Special  Leave  Petition,  are  not denied i  the detailed  ocunter affidavit  filed by  the 1st respondent in this Court. 10.  We ar concerned in this case, with the entertainment of the Writ  Petition against  a show  cause notice issued by a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

competent statutory  authority. It  should be  borne in mind that there  is not attack against the vires of the statutory provisions governing the matter. No question of infringement of any  fudamental right  guaranteed by  the Constitution is alleged or proved. It cannot be said that Ext. P-4 notice is ex facie  a "nullity"  or totally  "without jurisdiction" in the traditional  sense of  that expression -- that is to say even the  commencement or  initiation of the proceedings, on the face  of  it  and  without  anything  more,  is  totally unauthrised.  In  such  a  case,  for  entertaining  a  Writ Petition under  Article 226  of the  Constitution  of  India against a  show-cause notice,  at power  or jurisdiction, to enter upon  the enquiry  in question. In all other cases, it is only  appropariate that  the party  shold  avail  of  the alternate remedy  and show cause against the same before the authority concerned  and taken  up the  objection  regarding jurisdiction  alos,   then.  In  the  event  of  an  adverse decision, it  will certainly  be open  to him, to assail the same either in appeal or revision, as the case may be, or in appropriate  cases,   by  invoking  the  jurisdiction  under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11.  On the  facts of  this  case,  we  hold  that  the  1st respondent was  unjustified in  invoking  the  extraordinary jurisdiction of  the High  Court under  Article 226  of  the Constitution of  India, without  first showing cause against Annexure Ext. P-4 before the 3rd respondent. The appropriate procedure for the 1st respondent would have been to file his objections and  place necessary  materials  before  the  3rd respondent  and   invite  a   decision  as  to  whether  the proceedings initiated by the 3rd respondent under Section 59 of the  Bihar State  Housing Board  Act, 1982, are justified and appropriate. The adjudication in that behalf necessarily involves  disputed   questions   of   fact   which   require investigation. In such a case, proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution can hardly be an appropriate remedy. The High Court  committed a grave error in entertaining the Writ Petition and  in allowing the same by quashing Annexure Ext. P-4 and  also the  Eviction proceedings  No.  6/92,  without proper and  fair investigation  of the  basic facts. We are, therefore, constrained to set aside the judgment of the High Court of  Patna in CWJC NO. 82/93 dated 10.2.1993. We hereby do so. The appeal is allowed with costs.